Leaders’ Committee

10 February 2015

At London Councils offices, 59½ Southwark St., London SE1 0AL Refreshments will be provided London Councils offices are wheelchair accessible

Labour Group: Room 2 and 3 10:00 Political Adviser: 07977 401955)

Conservative Group: Room 5 10:30 (Political Adviser: 07903 492195)

Contact Officer: Derek Gadd

Telephone and email: 020 7934 9505 derek.gadd@londoncouncils.gov.uk

Lunch will be provided in Room 4 for members after the meeting

Agenda item Page

1 Declarations of Interest\* 1

2 Minutes of the Leaders’ Committee held on 9 December 2014 1

3 Reforming Health & Care 19

4 Review of Scale of Election Fees 2015/16 31

5 London Devolution and Public Service Reform Proposition 43

6 Freedom Pass Reissue Update 65

7 Minutes and summaries:- 77 • Grants Committee – 26 November 2014 • Capital Ambition Board – 3 December 2014 • TEC – 11 December 2014 • Pensions CIV Sectoral Joint Committee – 17 December 2014 *Declarations of Interests*

If you are present at a meeting of London Councils' or any of its associated joint committees or their sub-committees and you have a disclosable pecuniary interest\* relating to any business that is or will be considered at the meeting you must not:

- participate in any discussion of the business at the meeting, or if you become aware of your disclosable pecuniary interest during the meeting, participate further in any discussion of the business, or
- participate in any vote taken on the matter at the meeting.

These prohibitions apply to any form of participation, including speaking as a member of the public.

It is a matter for each member to decide whether they should leave the room while an item that they have an interest in is being discussed. In arriving at a decision as to whether to leave the room they may wish to have regard to their home authority's code of conduct and/or the Seven (Nolan) Principles of Public Life.

*as defined by the Relevant Authorities (Disclosable Pecuniary Interests) Regulations 2012*

The Chairman to move the removal of the press and public since the following items are exempt from the Access to Information Regulations. Local Government Act 1972 Schedule 12(a) (as amended) Section 3 Information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information).

| Agenda item | Page | |-------------|------| | E1 Minutes and summaries:- | | | • Exempt part of Capital Ambition Board on 3rd December 2014 | 1 | London Councils

Minutes of the London Councils Leaders’ Committee held on 9 December 2014 Mayor Jules Pipe chaired the meeting

Present: BARKING AND DAGENHAM Cllr Darren Rodwell BARNET Cllr Richard Cornelius BEXLEY Cllr Teresa O’Neill BRENT Cllr M. A. Butt BROMLEY Cllr Stephen Carr CAMDEN Cllr Theo Blackwell CROYDON Cllr Tony Newman EALING Cllr Julian Bell ENFIELD Cllr Doug Taylor GREENWICH Cllr Denise Hyland HACKNEY Mayor Jules Pipe HAMMERSMITH & FULHAM - HARINGEY Cllr Claire Kober HARROW Cllr David Perry HAVERING Cllr Roger Ramsey HILLINGDON Cllr Ray Puddifoot MBE HOUNSLOW Cllr Stephen Curran ISLINGTON Cllr Richard Watts KENSINGTON & CHELSEA Cllr Nicholas Paget-Brown KINGSTON Cllr Kevin Davis LAMBETH - LEWISHAM Mayor Sir Steve Bullock MERTON Cllr Stephen Alambritis NEWHAM Cllr Ken Clark REDBRIDGE Cllr Jas Athwal RICHMOND UPON THAMES Cllr Lord True SOUTHWARK Cllr Peter John SUTTON Cllr Ruth Dombey TOWER HAMLETS - WALTHAM FOREST Cllr Clyde Loakes WANDSWORTH Cllr Ravi Govindia WESTMINSTER Cllr Philippa Roe CITY OF LONDON Mrs Catherine McGuiness LFEPA -

Apologies: CAMDEN Cllr Sarah Hayward LAMBETH Cllr Lib Peck NEWHAM Mayor Sir Robin Wales TOWER HAMLETS Mayor Lutfur Rahman WALTHAM FOREST Cllr Chris Robbins CITY OF LONDON Mr Mark Boleat CAPITAL AMBITION Mr Edward Lord JP OBE CC GRANTS Cllr Paul McGlone

1. Declarations of interest

No interests were declared.

2. Minutes of Leaders’ Committee meeting held on the 14 October 2014

Leaders’ Committee agreed the minutes of Leaders’ Committee held on the 14 October 2014.

3. Cllr David Sparks OBE, LGA Chair

The Chair welcomed Cllr David Sparks OBE, LGA Chair and asked him to address Leaders’ Committee.

Cllr David Sparks OBE, LGA Chair made the following comments:

- He would talk on three topics:

  - An update on the LGA’s devolution campaign following the Scottish Referendum
  - The LGA’s tactics and strategy
  - The One Hundred Days document, the LGA’s blueprint for the first hundred days of a new government

- For an association with as many as four hundred members the best way it could relate to individual members was through meaningful discussions with groups of members such as this at Leaders’ Committee today

- The sort of feedback he would get today enhanced the LGA’s credibility when it negotiated with central government and Brussels • He saw London and its governance as very different to other UK cities. The One Hundred Days document was designed by the LGA’s four party groupings and included costed proposals and brought financial and thus political credibility to discussions on it with the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government.

In response to a question from Cllr Richard Cornelius (Conservative, Barnet) about the situation in London and the relationship between the Mayor, the Assembly and the boroughs, Cllr Sparks put forward his view that the balance between the Mayor and the boroughs was not right and the situation with the proposed Manchester Mayor was very different.

4. Autumn Statement 2014

The Chair introduced the item by saying that, in addition to the report, officers had prepared a helpful briefing for members immediately following the statement. This had been made available to Leaders.

Cllr Ravi Govindia (Conservative, Wandsworth) argued that it was important to lay down a marker that local authorities should be involved in the review of Business Rates announced in the Statement.

Leaders’ Committee agreed to note the report.

5. London Devolution and Public Service Reform Proposition

The Chair introduced the item saying it set out the next steps which Leaders were asked to take in pursuit of devolution and reform of public services in London.

Cllr Richard Watts (Labour, Islington) referred to the paragraph in the report that described the outline package as including proposals for devolution and reform in relation to Skills, Employment, Complex Dependency, Housing and Health and argued for the need for flexibility in implementing these which would have to be done in different ways in London and that the case for devolution below the Mayor was not yet won. Cllr Peter John (Labour, Children and Young People, Southwark) commented:

- London needed to be clear what its offer was as a pan-London agreement was needed
- London Councils itself was a good working model of how the boroughs could work together and with the Mayor and deliver devolution
- If London local government could not reach agreement then it would lose out in any devolution settlement
- The gap between rich and poor in boroughs needed to be narrowed and the proceeds of growth must go to those in need
- Trust and confidence needed to be built across party groupings.

Cllr Julian Bell (Labour, Ealing);

- Welcomed the absence of the phrase Combined Authority in the report
- Argued that the best approach was to build incrementally on structures that were already in place as the West London Alliance was seeking to do
- and
- Growth needed to be focussed on, in any offer to central government.

Cllr Theo Blackwell (Labour, Camden) argued:

- The structure over the next ten years needed to be looked at rather than Devo Max
- Jobs were fundamental
- Delivering Public Services over the next ten years would be much more informed by developments in data and technology
- Governance structures need to be based on better awareness of the most vulnerable at a local level.

Mayor Sir Steve Bullock (Labour, Housing, Lewisham) said:

- There was not going to be a ‘Big Bang’ of devolution
- Gains made during the process must not be lost
- Health and Well-being Boards were not perfect and needed to be developed but not abandoned
- They needed to be at the heart of work on Health • The Health economy, straddling primary and acute was complex

Cllr Philippa Row (Conservative, Westminster) argued:

• There was a need to focus far more on what Government was going to get out of devolution as well as boroughs • A model that all can buy into was needed quickly

The Chair summed up by indicating that a significant amount of work was going on and cited his and Cllr Roe's recent attendance at a meeting of the Devolution and Public Service Reform Group of Chief Executives that was led by the London Councils Chief Executive and was focusing on the further development of the London offer.

Leaders' Committee agreed to:

• Endorse the broad approach of working with the Mayor of London in urgently seeking joint negotiations with government on a proposition for devolution and reform of public services in London • Note the scope of the proposals set out as a potential basis for negotiations with government, including those for governance based on existing joint working arrangements • Support the development of sufficient operational detail to underpin the proposals by early 2015, drawing on the support of chief executives in member authorities.

6. Improving Childcare in London

Cllr Peter John introduced the item saying:

• The report set out an overview of the common childcare challenges facing the London boroughs and suggested strategic as well as practical options that could merit further exploration to complement and strengthen local initiatives

• Research into childcare in London had shown the following findings:

- **Low take up** - London had a lower percentage take up of the early years entitlement for two, three and four year olds compared to the England average in part due to parents exercising their preference to not take up the childcare offer, reflecting personal circumstances as well as community attitudes towards childcare.

- **Childcare costs** - Childcare in London was 28 per cent more expensive than in other regions and while Government funding to deliver free early education for two, three and four year-olds included an Area Cost Adjustment, it did not provide a sufficient uplift to meet the average costs of childcare in London.

- **Lack of provider engagement** - 41 per cent of nurseries and pre-schools in London, approximately 1,300 providers in total, had opted not to offer places for eligible two year-olds as the funding rate offered by Government was not considered financially sustainable.

- **Market capacity** - four in ten of London’s childcare providers were now operating at maximum capacity. Therefore, there was limited scope for the existing childcare market to meet the rising demand for places.

- **Quality** - There were 75 per cent good and outstanding Ofsted rated early years settings in London. London lags behind the national average of 78 per cent, so London parents had a smaller pool of high quality places to access.

- **Part time employment** - Only 3% of new vacancies in the London Labour market were for part time roles paying salaries at £20,000 full time equivalent or more.

- The report suggested a set of options for further exploration to address the challenges outlined. It was a mixture of options some of which were asks specifically for local authorities and others of the Department of Education.

Cllr Watts suggested that as part of London Councils’ lobbying campaign there should be an ask for additional flexibility in the delivery of the two year-old entitlement to support and meet the differing needs of families. For instance, families receiving support through the Troubled Families programme and who were also eligible for the two year-old entitlement may benefit from using the offer to supplement existing childcare or purchase childcare to fit around the interview/training times.

Cllr Ravi Govindia referred to the large number of self-employed in his borough and the importance of understanding their needs. Cllr Claire Kober (Labour, Infrastructure and Regeneration, Haringey) commented:

- The report seemed to accept the system as it was and how to improve it whilst it could be more challenging of that status quo.
- We needed to consider what would incentivise greater quality?
- Attempts to address the problems of populations with high levels of deprivation could help tackle London's problems.

Cllr John summed up by saying:

- At a local level, Southwark and Lambeth had set up a Childcare Commission, due to publish its report in January, which looked at the varying needs of distinct groups of parents in different parts of London such as the self-employed in Wandsworth. London's flexible Labour Market and twenty-four hour economy meant there was a need for wrap-around childcare
- There was also a need to look at work that the LEP was doing, getting mothers back into work.

Leaders' Committee agreed to note the report.

7. London Youth Games

The Chair introduced the report and invited Cllr Sir Steve Bullock and Cllr Stephan Carr – who, he commented, had been personally involved with the Games to express their views.

Cllr Bullock pointed out that without borough support the Games would not happen and Cllr Stephen Carr (Conservative, Bromley) expressed his strong support for the Games and saw a huge amount of benefit for young people from participating and from volunteering to help organise them.

The Chair summed up by pointing to the overwhelming endorsement from borough leaders for the Games and the proposition that individual boroughs fund the London Youth Games by £7,000 per borough per year between 2016/17 to 2018/19. 8. 50th Anniversary of London Boroughs

The Chief Executive introduced the report saying:

- In March 2014, the London Councils Executive agreed a series of objectives for London Councils’ work for the anniversary
- London Councils had formed a small working group of partners to help co-ordinate its work and support borough activity. It was also working with borough communications teams, Chief Executives, Heads of Democratic Services, archivists, the London Metropolitan Archive and London Film Archives to mark the anniversary and to help promote the use of the archives in future
- Professor Tony Travers would deliver a lecture on 19 May 2015 at the Guildhall which would be published as a pamphlet.

Cllr Philippa Roe asked that archive material should be themed around the achievements of the boroughs in the past fifty years.

Leaders’ Committee agreed to note the report.

9. London Councils Grants Scheme - Budget Proposals 2015/16

The Chair introduced the report, passing on the apologies of the Grants Chair, Cllr Paul McGlone, saying that the issues around the Grants programme had been well rehearsed.

Cllr Ray Puddifoot MBE (Conservative, Adult Social Care, Hillingdon) expressed his unease at the spending of a quarter of a million pounds of reserves and Cllr Carr concurred on the use of reserves and complained of what he felt was poor value for money secured in the ESF programme.

The Chair summed up by saying that post-2017 Grants funding would start to be looked at in the New Year and Leaders’ Committee agreed:

- An overall level of expenditure of £10.5 million for the Grants Scheme in 2015/16 (inclusive of £2.5 million gross ESF programme, which included a sum of £500,000 to fund all existing commissions for the period April to June 2015) • That taking into account the application of £1.25 million ESF grant and a transfer of £250,000 from reserves, borough contributions for 2015/16 should be £9 million, the same as for the current year.

• That further to the recommendations above, constituent councils be informed of the Committee's recommendation and be reminded that further to the Order issued by the Secretary of State for the Environment under Section 48 (4A) of the Local Government Act 1985, if the constituent councils had not reached agreement by the two-thirds majority specified before 1 February 2015 they should be deemed to have approved expenditure of an amount equal to the amount approved for the preceding financial year (i.e. £10 million);

• that constituent councils be advised that the apportionment of contributions for 2015/16 would be based on the ONS mid-year population estimates for June 2013 and

• that subject to the approval of an overall level of expenditure, the Committee agreed to set aside a provision of £555,000 for costs incurred by London Councils in providing staff and other support services to ensure delivery of the Committee's programme of approved commissions, including ESF administration of £120,000.

10. Proposed Revenue Budget and Borough Subscriptions and Charges 2015/16

The Chief Executive introduced the report saying:

• It proposed the level of boroughs subscriptions and charges to be levied in 2015/16, together with the consolidated revenue income and expenditure budget for 2015/16. These proposals were considered by the London Councils Executive at its meeting on 20 November and this package was agreed for submission to this Committee for final consideration and approval.

• The detailed budget and subscription proposals for 2015/16 relating to the Grants Committee had been considered by the Grants Committee at its meeting on 26 November and was the subject of a separate report to this Committee which it had approved. The recommendations in that report were reflected in this paper.

• The subscription and budget proposals for 2015/16 relating to the Transport and Environment Committee were considered by the TEC Executive Sub-Committee at its meeting on 13 November and would be put before the full TEC meeting on 11 December for final approval. The Leaders’ Committee was, therefore, asked to endorse these budget proposals and charges for TEC

- The report contained details of savings achieved and payments made back to boroughs since 2010/11 and were consistent with the trajectory of London Councils’ funding agreed by members.

Cllr Cornelius welcomed the savings made and appreciated the budget trajectory but hoped its angle could be steeper.

Cllr John urged that the organisation should not be hollowed out in a way that lost it the credibility to plausibly pursue the arguments it was making about devolution and its further governance.

The Chair summed up by saying that all future decisions about the organisation needed to be assessed in the context of the following questions:

- Does the activity under consideration add value?
- If the activity ceased at London Councils, would it cost boroughs more to replicate it locally?
- Do proposals for change take due account of likely future challenges, in particular around devolution?

In the context of those questions, that of course the organisation needed to strive for ever greater value for money, but those tests needed to be applied.

Leaders’ Committee agreed to approve the following borough subscription and charges:

- The proposed Joint Committee subscription for boroughs of £167,473 per borough for 2015/16, a reduction of 2.88% on the charge of £172,427 for 2014/15. The City of London would continue to pay £163,710, in recognition of the fact the City was historically not part of the regional Local Government Employers (LGE) arrangements and • The proposed Joint Committee subscription for the MOPAC and the LFEPA of £16,233 for 2015/16, a reduction of 2.88% on the charge of £16,700 for 2014/15

In acknowledgement of the Committee’s agreement of the budget and subscriptions for the Grants Committee for 2015/16 Leaders’ Committee agreed to approve:

• An overall level of expenditure of £10.5 million for the Grants Scheme in 2015/16 (inclusive of £2.5 million gross ESF programme, which included a sum of £500,000 to fund all existing commissions for the period April to June 2015) and

• That taking into account the application of £1.25 million ESF grant and a £250,000 transfer from reserves, net borough contributions for 2015/16 should be £9 million, the same level as for 2014/15

Leaders’ Committee also endorsed the following subscription and charges for 2015/16 for TEC, which were considered by the TEC Executive Sub-Committee on 13 November, and which would be considered by the full meeting of TEC on 11 December:

• The Parking Core Administration Charge of £1,500 per borough and for TfL (2014/15 - £1,500)

• The Parking Enforcement Service Charge of £0.4333 per PCN, which would be distributed to boroughs and TfL in accordance with the number of PCNs issued in 2013/14 (2014/15 - £0.4519 per PCN)

• The Freedom Pass Administration Charge of £8,674 per borough (2014/15 - £8,674)

• The total Taxicard Administration Charge to boroughs of £338,182 in total (2014/15 - £417,360)

• No charge to boroughs in respect of the Lorry Control Administration Charge, which was fully covered by estimated PCN income (2014/15 - £98,612; average charge £3,287)

• The Parking and Traffic Appeals Charge of £33.40 per appeal or £29.97 per appeal where electronic evidence was provided by the enforcing authority (2014/15 - £38.54/£36.92 per appeal)

• Congestion Charging Appeals – to be recovered on a full cost recovery basis, as for 2014/15, subject to the continuing agreement of the GLA under existing contractual arrangements

• The TRACE (Electronic) Charge of £8.60 per transaction (2014/15 - £10.40)

• The TRACE (Fax) Charge of £8.80 per transaction (2014/15 - £12.83) and • The PEC, PED and PIE Charges of £0.20 per transaction (2014/15 - £0.20)

On the basis of the above agreed level of subscriptions and charges, Leaders’ Committee agreed to approve:

• The consolidated revenue expenditure budget for 2015/16 for London Councils of £396.063 million

• The consolidated revenue income budget for 2015/16 for London Councils of £396.063 million

• Within the total income requirement, the use of London Council reserves of £1.389 million in 2015/16, inclusive of the proposed £825,000 repatriation to boroughs in 2015/16 and £250,000 to fund the existing ESF commissions for the period April to June 2015

The Leaders’ Committee also agreed to note:

• The indicative London Councils revenue budget, for the period 2016/17 and 2017/18,

• The position in respect of forecast uncommitted London Council reserves as at 31 March 2015 and

• The positive statement on the adequacy of the residual London Councils reserves issued by the Director of Corporate Resources.

11. Nominations to the Pensions CIV Sectoral Joint Committee

Leaders’ Committee agreed to note the nominations to the Pensions CIV Sectoral Joint Committee.

PENSIONS CIV Nominations

| Borough | Rep | Party | Deputy | |------------------|----------------|-------|-------------------| | Barking & Dagenham | Dominic Twomey | Lab | Faraaz Shaukat | | Barnet | Mark Shooter | Con | Richard Cornelius | | Bexley | John Waters | Con | Louie French | | Brent | George Crane | Lab | | | Bromley * | Peter Brayshaw | Lab | Theo Blackwell | | Camden | Simon Hall | Lab | John Wentworth | | Croydon | | | | Ealing Enfield Greenwich Hackney Hammersmith & Fulham Haringey Harrow Havering * Hillingdon * Hounslow Islington Kensington & Chelsea Kingston upon Thames Lambeth Lewisham Merton Newham Redbridge Richmond upon Thames Southwark Sutton Tower Hamlets Waltham Forest Wandsworth Westminster City of London

Yvonne Johnson Toby Simon Don Austen Robert Chapman Iain Cassidy Jason Arthur Keith Ferry Mukesh Malhotra Richard Greening Quentin Marshall Eric Humphrey Adrian Garden Mark Ingleby Imran Uddin Forhad Hussain Elaine Norman Thomas O'Malley Fiona Colley Sunita Gordon Clare Harrisson Maurice Heaster Suhail Rahuja Mark Boleat

Lab Lab Lab Lab Lab Lab Lab Lab Lab Lab Lab Lab Lab Lab Lab Lab Lab Lab Lab Lab

Anthony Young Derek Levy and Doug Taylor Stephen Brain Geoff Taylor Mike Adam Claire Kober Bharat Thakker Surinder Purewal Andy Hull Warwick Lightfoot Rowena Bass Neil Sabharwal Ted Sparrowhawk Ross Hatfull Benedict Dias Adrian Davey Guy Senior Melvyn Caplan

\*These boroughs would not be making nominations as they were not participating at this time.

12. Minutes and Summaries

Leaders' Committee agreed to note the minutes and summaries

- Grants Executive – 17 September 2014
- Capital Ambition Board – 13 October 2014
- TEC – 16 October 2014
- GLPC – 5 November 2014
- TEC Exec Sub Committee – 13 November 2014

Action Points

| Item | Action | Progress | |------|--------|----------| | 9. London Councils Grants Scheme - Budget Proposals 2015/16 | Grants | Noted | | • An overall level of expenditure of £10.5 | | | million for the Grants Scheme in 2015/16 (inclusive of £2.5 million gross ESF programme, which included a sum of £500,000 to fund all existing commissions for the period April to June 2015)

- That taking into account the application of £1.25 million ESF grant and a transfer of £250,000 from reserves, borough contributions for 2015/16 should be £9 million, the same as for the current year

- That further to the recommendations above, constituent councils be informed of the Committee's recommendation and be reminded that further to the Order issued by the Secretary of State for the Environment under Section 48 (4A) of the Local Government Act 1985, if the constituent councils had not reached agreement by the two-thirds majority specified before 1 February 2015 they should be deemed to have approved expenditure of an amount equal to the amount approved for the preceding financial year (i.e. £10 million);

- that constituent councils be advised that the apportionment of contributions for 2015/16 would be based on the ONS mid-year population estimates for June 2013 and

- that subject to the approval of an overall level of expenditure, the Committee agreed to set aside a provision of £555,000 for costs incurred by London Councils in providing staff and other support services to ensure delivery of the Committee’s programme of approved commissions, including ESF administration of £120,000.

| 10. | Proposed Revenue Budget and Borough Subscriptions and Charges 2015/16 | Corporate Finance | |-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------| | | London Councils subscriptions and charges to be; | Noted | | | • The Joint Committee subscription for boroughs of £167,473 per borough for 2015/16, a reduction of 2.88% on the charge of £172,427 for 2014/15. The City of London would continue to pay £163,710, in recognition of the fact the City was historically not part of the regional Local Government Employers (LGE) arrangements and | | | • The Joint Committee subscription for the MOPAC and the LFEPA of £16,233 for 2015/16, a reduction of 2.88% on the charge of £16,700 for 2014/15 | | | In acknowledgement of the Committee’s agreement of the budget and subscriptions for the Grants Committee for 2015/16 | | | • An overall level of expenditure of £10.5 million for the Grants Scheme in 2015/16 (inclusive of £2.5 million gross ESF programme, which included a sum of £500,000 to fund all existing commissions for the period April to | June 2015) and

- That taking into account the application of £1.25 million ESF grant and a £250,000 transfer from reserves, net borough contributions for 2015/16 should be £9 million, the same level as for 2014/15

The following subscription and charges for 2015/16 for TEC, which were considered by the TEC Executive Sub-Committee on 13 November, and which would be considered by the full meeting of TEC on 11 December were endorsed:

- The Parking Core Administration Charge of £1,500 per borough and for TfL (2014/15 - £1,500)
- The Parking Enforcement Service Charge of £0.4333 per PCN, which would be distributed to boroughs and TfL in accordance with the number of PCNs issued in 2013/14 (2014/15 - £0.4519 per PCN)
- The Freedom Pass Administration Charge of £8,674 per borough (2014/15 - £8,674)
- The total Taxicard Administration Charge to boroughs of £338,182 in total (2014/15 - £417,360)
- No charge to boroughs in respect of the Lorry Control Administration Charge, which was fully covered by estimated PCN income (2014/15 - £98,612; average charge £3,287) • The Parking and Traffic Appeals Charge of £33.40 per appeal or £29.97 per appeal where electronic evidence was provided by the enforcing authority (2014/15 - £38.54/£36.92 per appeal)

• Congestion Charging Appeals – to be recovered on a full cost recovery basis, as for 2014/15, subject to the continuing agreement of the GLA under existing contractual arrangements

• The TRACE (Electronic) Charge of £8.60 per transaction (2014/15 - £10.40)

• The TRACE (Fax) Charge of £8.80 per transaction (2014/15 - £12.83) and

• The PEC, PED and PIE Charges of £0.20 per transaction (2014/15 - £0.20)

On the basis of the above agreed level of subscriptions and charges:

• The consolidated revenue expenditure budget for 2015/16 for London Councils of £396.063 million

• The consolidated revenue income budget for 2015/16 for London Councils of £396.063 million

• Within the total income requirement, the use of London Council reserves of £1.389 million in 2015/16, inclusive of the proposed £825,000 repatriation to boroughs in 2015/16 and £250,000 to fund the existing ESF commissions for the period April to June 2015 Leaders’ Committee Reforming Health & Care

Report by: Sarah Sturrock\
Job title: Strategic Lead, Health and Adult Services

Date: 10 February 2015 Contact Officer: Sarah Sturrock Telephone: 020 7934 9653\
Email: sarah.sturrock@londoncouncils.gov.uk

Summary In October 2014, Leaders’ Committee agreed it was important for local authorities to play a greater role in shaping health and care change in London, at the local, sub-regional and pan-London levels. Since then the London Health Commission has reported and the NHS has published a Five Year Forward View setting out the strategic direction for transforming health and care. This paper considers the implications of these on health and care public service reform and devolution proposals being developed by London government, and seeks Leaders’ guidance on next steps.

Recommendations Leaders are asked to:

1. note the key developments in the NHS that are laying the foundations for wider transformation that is likely to be accelerated after the election; and

2. give officers a steer on how London Councils should position itself in relation to these. Reforming Health & Care

Background

1. In October, Leaders’ Committee agreed that local authorities should play a greater role in shaping health and care change in London, at the local, sub-regional and pan-London levels.

2. The pace of change in health and care services has accelerated in recent months. Two reports have added momentum and created permission to act for many NHS organisations. Firstly on 15 October, Professor Lord Ara Darzi published the report of the London Health Commission that he had led at the request of the Mayor of London. Then on 23 October, the six main national NHS bodies(^1) published a joint Five Year Forward View. Following these reports NHS partners in London are developing joint programmes to support transformation of health and care in the capital that respond to recommendations from London Health Commission and fit with the Five Year Forward View.

3. This work is likely to set boundaries for what types of health and care joint working is possible when government considers its options in the Spending Review that follows the general election.

4. London local government’s ability to manage its care services beyond 2015 will be affected by its ability to engage locally, sub-regionally and at London level with these transformation proposals.

5. This paper summarises these developments and seeks guidance on possible responses by London local government. This will also inform work, following Leaders’ Committee decisions in December, that London Councils should develop with the Mayor of London proposals to government on a package of public service reform and devolution.

______________________________________________________________________

(^1) NHS England, Monitor, NHS Trust Development Authority, Care Quality Commission, Health Education England and Public Health England NHS Five Year Forward View

06. The Five Year Forward View sets out a significant reform agenda for the NHS, alongside a call for additional funding, in the face of a forecast financial gap of £30 billion by 2020. It has been broadly welcomed by all political parties.

07. Key themes in the Five Year Forward View are: a. a significantly increased focus on prevention and public health – including support for further powers for local government; b. greater patient choice and control; c. greater integration – breaking down barriers between different parts of the system (primary/hospital, physical/mental health, etc) to provide holistic care and shift more care out of hospitals; d. local health economies will be supported to choose from a small number of new models of care; e. a new deal for primary care – both increasing the proportion of NHS funding and improving quality and accessibility; f. a range of enablers, including co-ordinated leadership across the NHS; backing diverse solutions and local leadership; workforce; digital and data; accelerating health innovation; g. increasing efficiency – aiming for at least 2% efficiency savings annually, possibly rising to 3% (long run performance has been 0.8%, but nearer to 1.5-2% in recent years, one third or one quarter of which is estimated as coming from pay restraint); h. a call to increase NHS funding protection from ‘flat real’ to ‘flat real per person’ (ie reflecting population growth) – which amounts to £8 billion additional funding by 2020/21, if assumed efficiencies are delivered.

08. The NHS Planning Guidance 2015/16, published on 23 December, sets out a range of ways in which NHS organisations are expected to start developing their local responses to the Five Year Forward View in 2015/16. This is supported by the additional £1.98 billion funding for the NHS announced in the Autumn Statement. The majority of this funding has been included in 2015/16 Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) allocations, with a particular focus on those that were furthest from their ‘target’ allocation. Operational resilience or ‘winter pressures’ funding has also been included in CCG baselines. The guidance explains that there will not be a ‘top down’ process for transformation, but CCGs are encouraged to develop and progress locally driven plans through Strategic Planning Groups (of which there are 6 in London).

09. Some of the new funding is being used to support a range of nationally led initiatives including: a. £200 million to support ‘vanguard’ areas develop new models of care (we understand many parts of London are likely to submit expressions of interest by the deadline of 9 February); b. £100 million to improve access to primary care through expanding the Prime Minister’s Challenge Fund and £250 million over each of the next 4 years to improve premises and infrastructure; and c. £30 million additional funding for mental health.

10. Other initiatives of interest are the development of a joint NHS England, Monitor and NHS Trust Development Authority ‘success regime’ for challenged health economies, a requirement that CCGs increase their budget for mental health by at least the amount of their overall budget uplift, and plans for developing a health and care garden city in one or more fast growing population areas. In parallel, NHS England is currently assuring proposals from CCGs to take on co-commissioning responsibilities for primary care from April 2015 and exploring the potential for co-commissioning arrangements for much of its specialised commissioning responsibilities.

11. The NHS planning cycle will result in CCGs and providers having to develop and secure assurance of plans for 2015/16 in very tight timescales up to early April. Despite this the direction of travel in the Five Year Forward View and planning guidance provide platforms for greater local leadership beyond this year. However, if these opportunities are not seized and locally led reform of health and care does not gain momentum in the next year, there is a risk that ‘top down’ approaches will re-emerge.

12. Local government will need to consider what role it will play in building a locally driven approach. Health and Wellbeing Boards (HWBs) could be pivotal in securing a shared vision and joint working across health and care organisations locally.

13. Even with stronger local integration, pressures for action at larger geographical scale are growing. CCGs are increasingly working at Strategic Planning Group (SPG) level, covering up to eight boroughs, in particular on primary care co-commissioning and new models of care. Since last autumn they are able to form statutory joint committees with each other and NHS England to strengthen governance and collaboration at that level. They are therefore working through how to build sub-regional level arrangements that secure devolution within the NHS, while retaining their local focus.

14. London local government will need to engage at this sub-regional scale in order to influence decisions within the health economy. Some boroughs have started discussions with neighbours about how to engage with emerging NHS arrangements. These initiatives will need to accelerate, or commence, if London local government is to influence issues being addressed through new sub-regional governance arrangements. Following the Spending Review many of these arrangements may be more firmly fixed.

**London Health Commission**

15. Professor Lord Ara Darzi’s London Health Commission report set out 10 aspirations and 64 recommendations addressed to the Mayor of London, a range of NHS partners and London boroughs. These cover:

a. greater engagement, choice and power for patients - better information sharing and real time data, improved NHS engagement mechanisms, improved self-management support and trialling financial incentives like linking provider payments to patient-reported outcome measures and personally controlled payments in maternity care;

b. greater collaboration on the key public health challenges in the capital – including increased use of legal and regulatory powers by boroughs and the Mayor and a particular focus on improving children's health;

c. integrated health and care commissioning based on population segments with similar needs rather than professional specialisms;

d. modernising primary care – through increasing the proportion of spend, improving estate, setting service and quality standards, promoting networking of GPs to enable a wider service offer and addressing gaps in provision; e. accelerating improvements in specialised care - by creating centres of excellence for cancer and cardiovascular services, and reviewing elective orthopaedic services;

f. improving mental health – through pan-London digital mental health support, strengthening the role of mental health in primary care and a new model of care for child and adult mental health in crisis; and

g. enhancing economic growth from the health and life sciences sectors.

16. To support these changes Lord Darzi calls for:

a. clarifying and rebalancing health budgets – budgets for all NHS commissioning to be set by CCG for the full spending review, CCGs to consider a faster rebalancing of budgets between themselves, and a joint NHS England/CCG transformation budget;

b. devolution from NHS England to Strategic Planning Groups of CCGs;

c. incentivising improved used of the NHS estate – changing the rent reimbursement system for GPs, increasing capital charges on under-used hospital assets, creating an unused NHS buildings programme to encourage transfer of assets – calling government for flexibility on valuations for transfers within the public sector, and the creation of sub-regional Strategic Planning and Capital Boards, with local authorities, to manage assets strategically to support service planning;

d. supporting the workforce – calling for education and training funding allocations to continue to reflect London’s role as a centre of excellence, a shift of training focus to general practice, community and integrated settings and the development of new hybrid health and care roles, and for NHS Trusts to be able to include affordable housing in site redevelopment plans to improve retention; and

e. a new London Health Commissioner – appointed by the Mayor to champion health in the capital.

17. In summary, Lord Darzi’s proposals involve:

- changing financial incentives to change behaviours;
- devolving power and budgets within the NHS – but with a strong focus on the sub-regional level reflecting a focus on local health economies based around acute trusts;
- shifting funding and activity out of hospitals to community or home settings – through strengthening primary care and improving integration; • shaping services around patients rather than care professions and increasing patient power, although in small steps; • strengthening collaboration between commissioners and strengthening London level leadership to support this.

18. One recommendation is that the Mayor of London brings together responses to the report into a unified delivery plan and convenes a group to take an overview of how proposals are taken forward. Accordingly the Mayor has written to key partners to whom recommendations were addressed asking them how they will respond.

19. Across the NHS in London, it is clear that Lord Darzi’s report has been almost universally accepted and the focus is on how to move swiftly into implementation. NHS England and London CCGs are developing a joint programme that covers most of the recommendations, except for those on public health that were addressed to the Mayor or boroughs and those on the life sciences economy. This is also being shaped as London’s response to the Five Year Forward View agenda. The aim is to distinguish what needs to be done locally, sub-regionally and at a London level to deliver visible progress in 2015/16 and shape the approach in London beyond the spending review.

20. NHS England and the CCGs are keen to engage other partners, including local government, appropriately in this work. Boroughs need to decide how they wish to respond to this. However, it is clear that whether or not they engage, the NHS focus for improving health and care in London will be channelled through these emerging programme arrangements.

21. Locally borough engagement will be dependent on the relationships and joint working arrangements between boroughs and CCGs, and the ability of Health & Wellbeing Boards to provide the strategic leadership to drive collaboration. The response to the challenge of establishing effective means of engaging at the sub-regional level will determine boroughs’ influence at this scale. At a London level, London Councils is considering with borough officer networks where and how to engage in individual workstreams. However, local government will not want be driven solely by the NHS agenda, despite the momentum created behind it. A key challenge is therefore how to identify and make specific strategic interventions.

22. To address these issues boroughs will need to determine their approach to:

a. **integration** – building on the experiences of the Better Care Fund planning and its implementation through 2015/16, how do boroughs wish to pursue integration of health and social care at greater scale and pace? In so doing, how can they be a key partner in shaping the new models of care that are developed in their area? And what progress can be made in making better use of the total funding for health and care in an area?

b. **primary care** – what role can boroughs play in new co-commissioning arrangements, often led sub-regionally, to help improve the quality of and access to primary care? How could the particular challenges of primary care estates be addressed as part of wider development planning locally?

c. **estates** – could the creation of sub-regional estates boards, as a vehicle for more strategic planning and use of NHS estates, unlock better use of NHS land and release value to support change? How else can boroughs play a role in unlocking currently underused land, enabling the provision of suitable facilities for integrated services, and helping secure affordable housing for health and care workers?

d. **population health** – how can boroughs support the shift of focus from care professions and diseases to population health and whole-person focused care? As part of the increasing recognition of the role of the NHS in prevention, where are the opportunities to work more effectively together to reduce demand on services by improving health outcomes?

23. London level governance needs to be clearly focused on supporting local leadership and solutions to these issues – including through appropriate sub-regional working where that is necessary. At the London level, in addition to securing senior borough officer engagement in key parts of the NHS programme governance, two other areas of focus have emerged: a. **London Health Board** Lord Darzi recommended that the Mayor of London convene a group to prepare a unified delivery plan and oversee progress in implementing its recommendations. Rather than creating a separate group, London Councils is in discussion with the Mayor’s office to refocus the London Health Board as a vehicle for political leadership and oversight at a London level of both work flowing from the Commission’s report and wider transformation. The emerging intention is for the Board to be smaller. Political leadership of the group will need to be more overt and this will shape the issues on which the Board will take an interest. It will be essential that a tight focus is maintained on those issues taken up by the Board. Its value will need to be grounded in those issues where democratic political leadership can add to the professional skills already in place across London. It is likely to operate more in the way of the London Crime Reduction Board. Consequently it is expected that the scale of support to the Board will reduce in its new form. However, it will also be important that the London Health Board does also have an effective means of engagement with citizens and their representatives in Healthwatch, as well as the voluntary sector and related groups.

b. **London Health Commissioner** Lord Darzi recommended the Mayor appoint a London Health Commissioner “to champion health in the capital”. The GLA are considering further work with stakeholders to explore the nature and purpose of such a role. London Councils will be clear that boroughs would not support any moves to infringe on their public health powers or budgets if such a position were created. We would also need clarification about how such a role would add value, rather than centralise focus, to local leadership.

**Public Service reform and devolution in health and care**

24. One of the key ways for boroughs to make a strategic intervention in the future shaping of health and care in London is through the opportunities created for a devolution deal in health and care as part of London local government’s wider bids for devolution. The development of viable devolution proposals will need to take account of the Five Year Forward View and London Health Commission, and seek to shape compelling arguments for devolution that will enable London to move further and faster towards improving outcomes and managing financial pressures across health and care.

25. Early discussions have identified two broad areas which are being explored further:

a. **Estates** The London Health Commission identified a significant under-used of NHS estates in the capital and made some recommendations about how to start to address this. Devolution proposals would seek to build on these by exploring the potential of a more strategic deal with government, for example in which powers and funding might be devolved to the capital, to enable more joined up asset planning and management including through sub-regional and local arrangements. The intent would be to create more value and better land use as a means of accelerating improvements in health and care within London.

b. **Supporting local leadership** Building on the direction of travel of both the London Health Commission and NHS Five Year Forward View, we are seeking to identify key nationally imposed barriers to a real shift in the leadership of health and care so that change is driven from local commissioners and their partnerships with providers. Further work is needed to identify what reforms might be needed to strengthen local accountability and joined up working.

**Conclusion**

26. The challenges facing health and care are emerging as key issues in the general election and proposals for reform to address these will be a key feature into the spending review that will follow it. There will therefore be some uncertainty about national policy for much of this year. However, the NHS Five Year Forward View has started to shape the future direction. Steps taken this year will provide the foundations for wider changes to health and care in future years. The NHS in London is also using the London Health Commission as a vehicle for shaping up a significant programme of work to build momentum on this. Local government will need to decide how it wishes to engage in this locally, sub-regionally and regionally.
27. Leaders are asked to: a. note the key developments in the NHS that are laying the foundations for wider transformation that is likely to be accelerated after the election; and b. give officers a steer on how London Councils should position itself in relation to these.

IMPLICATIONS FOR LONDON COUNCILS

Financial Implications for London Councils

Legal Implications for London Councils None

Equalities Implications for London Councils None Leaders’ Committee

Review of Scale of Election Fees 2015/16

Item no: 4

Report by: Barry Quirk, L.B. Lewisham Job title: Chief Executives’ London Committee

Date: 10 February 2015 Contact Officer: Derek Gadd Telephone: 020 7934 9505 Email: derek.gadd@londoncouncils.gov.uk

Summary: The attached report deals with revisions to the scale of fees and expenses which can apply for local government elections in London boroughs in 2015/16.

Recommendations: Members are asked to approve the proposed scale of fees and expenses, as outlined in Appendix 1, as guidance for the London boroughs, with effect from 1 April 2015. Review of Scale of Election Fees 2015/16

Introduction

1. A review of the scale of election fees supplied to London Councils by the London Election Management Board is attached as an appendix. London boroughs were first empowered to fix their own scales of election fees in 1974. It has been the practice of London Councils and its predecessor bodies to receive a report and recommend a London-wide scale of fees for adoption by individual boroughs.

Basis for Review of Scale of Fees for Local Borough Council Elections and Referendums

2. This report proposes the scale of fees and expenses that will take effect on 1 April 2015. Members agreed to adopt the thorough revision in fees that was recommended in 1990 and to revise the fees annually thereafter. The established practice has been to revise all fees and expenses (where not stated as “actual and necessary cost”) in accordance with the previous year’s local government pay increases.

3. In 2002, in the light of changes to the law on postal voting, the requirement for staff to attend training sessions and a government review of fees for polling station staff, it was agreed it was necessary to make additional revisions to some fees. A further revision was agreed for the full council elections in 2006. This took account of experiences in dealing with changes to the law on postal votes, a further government review of the fees paid for parliamentary elections, and a desire to set fees for polling station inspectors and senior count staff. An additional charge to help recognise the need for more staff to manage and supervise the issue and receipt of postal votes was agreed in 2008. No further changes to the basic structure of the fees and expenses are proposed for 2015.

4. A local government pay award of 2.2% covering the 15 months up to 31 March 2016 has been agreed. Also additional consolidated payments are to be made to staff at SCP 5-49. Therefore, it is proposed that for the coming year:

- Part A fees – zero increase. These are the fees for Returning Officers and Deputy Returning Officers, and that

- Part B fees - are increased by 2% for the twelve months commencing 1 April 2015. The roles undertaken in part B are generally recognised as being within the SCP 5-49 range and, therefore, should reflect the 2.2% over 15 months and consolidated payments as part of this year’s Local Government pay settlement.

5. It is proposed that the scale should continue to form the basis for fees and expenses for referendums under the Local Government Act 2000 and any subsequent London borough mayoral elections. The further scale is to cater for any combined London borough and mayoral elections. It is proposed that the formula – where its use is appropriate – remains as a 20% increase when a combination is required. This formula was reduced from 25% in 2010 to bring it into line with the government costing assumptions for combined polls.

6. Part B expenses for polling station and count staff have been rounded to the nearest five pence. Fees for polling station staff are also shown as hourly rates to cater for any staff working only part of the day and any elections and referendums using non-standard polling times.

UK Parliamentary General Election 2015

7. The UKPGE will almost certainly be held on 7 May 2015. The funding for the election comes from the government’s Consolidated Fund. A maximum recoverable amount (MRA) for the services and expenses required to conduct the polls will be made known to Acting Returning Officers’ shortly. The MRA no longer comes with a list of assumptions upon which the amount is based. Therefore the long-standing London Scale of fees and expenses are an important guide upon which most, if not all, London borough’s base their poll, count and postal vote staff fees. Therefore, it is recommended that the fees and expenses as set out in Appendix 1, which have been in place and successfully underpinned the planning and budget assumptions for London Boroughs Returning Officers since 1990, are agreed.

Recommendation

Leaders’ Committee is recommended to agree the attached Scale of Returning Officers’ Fees and Expenses as guidance for the London boroughs.

Appendices

Appendix 1: Proposed Scale of Election Fees 2015/16

Financial Implications for London Councils There are no financial implications arising from this report.

**Legal Implications for London Councils**

There are no legal implications arising from this report.

**Equalities Implications for London Councils**

There are no equalities implications arising from this report.

## Scale of Returning Officers’/Counting Officers’ Fees and Expenses 2015/16

**London Borough Council Elections, Referendums and Mayoral Elections**

### Part A – Fees

| I | In a contested election: | Existing 2014/15 | Proposed 2015/16 | Combined 2015/16 | |---|--------------------------|------------------|------------------|------------------| | (1) | For conducting the election and generally performing the duties which a returning officer/counting officer is required to perform under any enactments relating to the election of London borough councillors or mayoral referendums or mayoral elections, other than any duties for which separate fees are prescribed herein: | | | | | | For each ward not exceeding five | £225.87 | £225.87 | £271.05 | | | For each additional ward | £45.48 | £45.48 | £54.57 | | | In addition, if the number of registered local government electors in a ward on the fifth day before the election exceeds 2,000 there shall be paid: | | | | | | For every 1,000 electors or fraction thereof over 2,000 in each ward | £23.23 | £23.23 | £27.87 | | (2) | For services in connection with the issue and receipt of the ballot papers of persons entitled to vote by post: | | | | | | For the first ward | £88.50 | £88.50 | £106.20 | | | For each additional ward | £27.65 | £27.65 | £33.18 | | | In addition, for every 100 postal voters on the final day for applications in each ward | £2.76 | £2.76 | £3.31 | (3) Allowance for poll cards

(a) For the preparation, first revision and the issue of the cards on the occasion of an election:

(i) For each ward

| Existing 2014/15 | Proposed 2015/16 | Combined 2015/16 | |------------------|------------------|------------------| | £62.23 | £62.23 | £62.23 |

(ii) For every 500 cards or fraction thereof above 7,000 and up to and including 10,000 for each ward

| Existing 2014/15 | Proposed 2015/16 | Combined 2015/16 | |------------------|------------------|------------------| | £7.93 | £7.93 | £7.93 |

(iii) For every 500 cards or fraction thereof above 10,000 for each ward

| Existing 2014/15 | Proposed 2015/16 | Combined 2015/16 | |------------------|------------------|------------------| | £3.49 | £3.49 | £3.49 |

(b) For each revision after the first prior to the issue of the cards:

| Existing 2014/15 | Proposed 2015/16 | Combined 2015/16 | |------------------|------------------|------------------| | £31.00 | £31.00 | £31.00 |

(4) For a person appointed by the returning officer/counting officer to discharge his/her functions under the Representation of the People Act 1983, Section 35(4), where the functions of such person include those specified in Rules 45 to 50 of the Local Elections (Principal Areas) (England and Wales) Rules 2006:

| Existing 2014/15 | Proposed 2015/16 | Combined 2015/16 | |------------------|------------------|------------------| | £121.83 | £121.83 | £146.19 |

II In an uncontested election:

For the services specified in paragraph I (1) of this part of the Schedule:

| Existing 2014/15 | Proposed 2015/16 | Combined 2015/16 | |------------------|------------------|------------------| | £151.45 | £151.45 | £181.74 | In no case shall a charge exceed the sum actually and necessarily paid or payable by the returning officer/counting officer. Subject thereto the charges shall be as follow:-

| | Existing 2014/15 | Proposed 2015/16 | Combined 2015/16 | |---|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------| | (1) | | | | | (a) For the presiding officer at each polling station open the normal statutory hours of 7 am until 10 pm other than a Saturday, Sunday or public holiday, not exceeding | £306.95 | £313.10 | £375.70 | | (b) For a presiding officer for each hour of opening at a polling station where opening hours vary from the normal hours, not exceeding | £20.45 | £20.85 | £25.00 | | (c) For a presiding officer for each hour of opening at a polling station open on a Saturday, Sunday or public holiday, not exceeding | £30.70 | £31.30 | £37.60 | | (d) In addition, a further sum may be paid to the senior presiding officer at the polling place (whether including one or more polling stations) who acts as overall presiding officer, not exceeding | £19.25 | £19.60 | £23.60 | | (e) In addition, a further sum may be paid to the presiding officer who acts as overall presiding officer at a polling place to which there are assigned not less than 3,000 voters (excluding absent voters other than those for whom proxies have been appointed), not exceeding | £18.90 | £19.30 | £23.15 | | (2) | | | | | (a) For each poll clerk at a polling station open the normal statutory hours of 7 am until 10 pm other than a Saturday, Sunday or public holiday, not exceeding | £207.45 | £211.60 | £253.90 | | (b) For a poll clerk for each hour of duty at a polling station open other than Saturday, Sunday or public holiday if not 7 am to 10 pm, not exceeding | £13.85 | £14.10 | £16.90 | | (c) For a poll clerk for each hour of duty at a polling station open on a Saturday, Sunday or public holiday, not exceeding | £20.70 | £21.10 | £25.35 | | | Existing 2014/15 | Proposed 2015/16 | Combined 2015/16 | |---|-----------------|------------------|-----------------| | (3) | (a) For each person appointed as a polling station inspector or visiting officer if appointed for the normal statutory hours of 7 am until 10 pm other than a Saturday, Sunday or public holiday, not exceeding | £326.20 | £332.70 | £399.25 | | | (b) For a polling station inspector or visiting officer for each hour of duty on a Saturday, Sunday or bank holiday if not 7 am to 10 pm, not exceeding | £21.75 | £22.20 | £26.60 | | | (b) For a polling station inspector or visiting officer for each hour of duty on a Saturday, Sunday or bank holiday, not exceeding | £32.60 | £33.25 | £39.90 | | (4) | For the remuneration of persons employed in issuing and receiving the ballot papers of persons entitled to vote by post: | | | | | | (a) For every 100 persons or fraction thereof of persons entitled to vote by post, for each ward | £100.80 | £102.80 | £123.40 | | | (b) For the person or persons appointed to manage the processes for the issue or receipt of postal votes, for each ward, not exceeding | £104.85 | £106.90 | £128.35 | | (5) | (a) For each person appointed as a count assistant in connection with the verification and counting of the votes: | | | | | | (i) For each hour or part thereof at a **night-time** verification or count, not exceeding | £25.75 | £26.25 | £26.25 | | | (ii) For each hour or part thereof at a **day-time** verification or count, not exceeding | £17.80 | £18.15 | £18.15 | | | (b) For each person appointed to act as count supervisor: | | | | | | (i) For each hour or part thereof at a **night-time** verification or count, not exceeding | £35.15 | £35.85 | £35.85 | | | (ii) For each hour or part thereof at a **day-time** verification or count, not exceeding | £24.30 | £24.80 | £24.80 | (5) (c) For each person appointed to act as a senior count supervisor:

| Description | Existing 2014/15 | Proposed 2015/16 | Combined 2015/16 | |------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------|------------------|------------------| | (i) For each hour or part thereof at a **night-time** verification or count, | £44.65 | £45.55 | £45.55 | | not exceeding | | | | | (ii) For each hour or part thereof at a **day-time** verification or count, | £30.85 | £31.45 | £31.45 | | not exceeding | | | |

(6) For clerical and other assistants employed by the returning officer/counting officer or deputy returning officer for the purposes of the election or referendum, excluding charges for employer’s share of superannuation contributions where payable:

| Description | Existing 2014/15 | Proposed 2015/16 | Combined 2015/16 | |------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------|------------------|------------------| | For each ward not exceeding five | £960.86 | £980.05 | £1176.10 | | For each additional ward | £190.30 | £194.10 | £232.90 | | In addition, if the number of registered local government electors in a | | | | | ward on the fifth day before the election exceeds 2,000 there shall be | | | | | paid: | | | | | For every 1,000 electors or fraction thereof over 2,000 in each ward | £57.62 | £58.77 | £70.50 |

(7) For employment of persons on sorting, checking and other duties in connection with the issue of poll cards, for every 100 cards or fraction thereof

| Description | Existing 2014/15 | Proposed 2015/16 | Combined 2015/16 | |------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------|------------------|------------------| | | £4.18 | £4.26 | £4.26 |

(8) (a) For the attendance at a training session of each person appointed by the returning officer/counting officer or deputy returning officer, not exceeding

| Description | Existing 2014/15 | Proposed 2015/16 | Combined 2015/16 | |------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------|------------------|------------------| | | £30.95 | £31.55 | £31.55 |

(b) For the provision of training any person appointed for the purposes of the election or referendum, for each training session, not exceeding

| Description | Existing 2014/15 | Proposed 2015/16 | Combined 2015/16 | |------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------|------------------|------------------| | | £171.00 | £174.40 | £174.40 | | | | Existing 2014/15 | Proposed 2015/16 | Combined 2015/16 | |---|---|-----------------|------------------|------------------| | (9) | (a) For travelling expenses incurred by the returning officer/counting officer in connection with the conduct of the election/referendum | Actual and necessary cost | Actual and necessary cost or such fixed sum as shall be settled by each returning officer/counting officer for appropriate employees in the light of the actual and necessary costs on average to be incurred having regard to the availability and cost of public or other suitable transport | | | (b) For travelling expenses incurred by other staff in connection with the conduct of the election/referendum | Actual and necessary cost | | | (10) | Expenses incurred in printing and providing ballot papers | Actual and necessary cost | | | (11) | Expenses incurred in printing and providing notices, documents and devices required in and about the election or referendum and costs of publishing or purchasing the same | Actual and necessary cost | | | (12) | Expenses incurred in printing and providing poll cards | Actual and necessary cost | | | (13) | For hand delivery of poll cards | Not greater than the cost of Royal Mail postage | | | (14) | For hand delivery of postal ballot papers to addresses within the London borough of the returning officer/counting officer | Not greater than the cost of Royal Mail first class postage | | | (15) | Expenses incurred in the renting of any building or room for the purpose of the election and for expenses of heating, lighting and cleaning any building or room for such purposes | Actual and necessary cost | | | (16) | Expenses incurred in adapting and fitting up any building or room for the purpose of the election (including the provision of voting compartments and any necessary furniture) and restoring it to fit condition for its normal use | Actual and necessary cost | | | (17) | Expenses incurred in providing ballot boxes, including repairs | Actual and necessary cost | | | (18) | Expenses incurred in the conveyance of ballot boxes and ballot papers to and from polling places | Actual and necessary cost or such fixed sum as shall be settled by each returning officer/counting officer | | | (19) | Expenses incurred in the conveyance of furniture, equipment and documents necessary for polling stations and the count | Actual and necessary cost | | | (20) | For every stamping instrument required to be purchased, hired, altered or repaired | Actual and necessary cost | | | (21) | For general stationery, postage, telephone calls, bank charges, employer's share of superannuation contributions (where payable) and miscellaneous expenses | Actual and necessary cost | | Leaders Committee

London Devolution and Public Service Reform Proposition

Item no: 5

Report by: Doug Flight\
Job title: Head of Strategic Policy

Date: 10 February 2015

Contact Officer: Doug Flight\
Email: Doug.flight@londoncouncils.gov.uk

Telephone: 020 7934 9805

Summary

This report provides an update on recent work in pursuit of devolution and reform of public services in London. This work follows the agreement at Leaders’ Committee on 9 December 2014 to a joint approach with the Mayor of London, seeking talks with Government on the scope of London devolution and public service reform agreement.

Chief executives and senior officers of member authorities and the GLA are currently advising on the development of a platform to support this joint approach for devolution and reform.

Recommendations

Leaders’ Committee is asked to:

1. Note the progress made, including the work which is in hand to develop operational detail to support initial engagement with Government.

2. Note the potential to develop and deepen the work after the 2015 General Election and in the run up to the likely Comprehensive Spending Review.

3. Note the wider engagement work on devolution and reform which continues with partners and the opportunity to deepen engagement with business and the voluntary sector as part of ongoing borough engagement. Devolution and Public Service Reform Update

Introduction

1. This report provides an update on recent progress in pursuit of devolution and reform of public services in London. This follows the agreement at Leaders’ Committee on 9 December 2014 to a joint approach with the Mayor of London, seeking talks with Government on the scope of a London devolution and public service reform agreement.

Background

2. Leaders’ Committee has considered a series of linked reports over the last two years on the longer-term prospects for financing local government together with wider opportunities for devolution and reform, including the London Growth Deal.

3. At Leaders’ Committee on 15 July 2014, members agreed that it would be advantageous for the focus of London Councils work in this area to encompass wider public service reform initiatives, particularly given the preparations for the General Election and likely comprehensive spending review expected in the summer of 2015 and the consequent opportunities for influencing manifestos and post-election spending plans.

4. This work led to the drafting of a proposition, which had been designed as a platform for practical delegation of responsibility to London in relation to a range of public services, where integration at a local level would produce more effective outcomes and greater efficiency.

5. The proposition included proposals for governance of newly devolved responsibilities, focussed on Borough Leaders and the Mayor and building to some degree on existing joint arrangements. The powers sought and the governance arrangements to support them do not take any powers away from any existing local or regional authority. The sovereignty of individual authorities in respect of existing functions remains unaffected and paramount.

6. The Mayor of London and London Councils Executive considered the broad scope of a potential proposition at the Congress Executive meeting on 20 November 2014. There was support for an approach to Government seeking talks on the scope of a London devolution and public service reform agreement.

7. At Leaders’ Committee on 9 December 2014, members formally agreed the broad scope of the proposals as a potential basis for negotiations with Government. Members went on to endorse a joint approach with the Mayor of London, seeking joint negotiations with Government, on a proposition for devolution and reform of public services in London. The original outline package included proposals for devolution and reform in relation to:

a. Skills\
b. Employment\
c. Housing\
d. Health\
e. Complex Dependency including Reoffending.

London Devolution Proposition- Recent Progress

08. A joint letter from Mayor of London and Chair of London Councils was sent to the Chancellor on 12 December 2014, proposing talks on the scope of a London devolution and public sector reform agreement. A copy is attached as Appendix A.

09. The Chair and Cllr Roe, the Executive Group Lead for Devolution and Reform, met the Cities Minister, Rt Hon Greg Clark MP, on 7 January 2015. The Minister broadly welcomed London’s joint approach on devolution and public service reform and agreed – subject to confirmation from the Chancellor - to support discussions on a London Deal that was outside the Growth Deal process. He went on to encourage a focus on public service reform through tangible and practical steps that would offer clear outcomes for government. The Minister was minded to sanction senior level meetings of officials for detailed conversations.

10. The Chancellor’s reply to the Mayor of London and Chair of London Councils, of 12 January 2015, indicated that the Government was happy to discuss further devolution to cities and encouraged London to pursue this through discussions with the Minister for Cities and his officials. A copy of the Chancellor’s reply is attached as Appendix B.

11. London Councils Executive considered a report on the London Devolution Proposition at its meeting on 20 January 2015. The Chair informed the Executive that he and Cllr Roe had met the Chief Executive’s Devolution & Public Service Reform group in November and sought their support for the development of detailed propositions supporting the political initiative agreed with the Mayor of London.

12. The Executive endorsed the approach being taken, including the work being taken by chief executives to develop the initial framework of operational detail to support negotiations with Government. Increased political oversight will be added as the propositions develop, through direct engagement between relevant London Councils’ Portfolio Holders and the individual chief executives who are leading specific streams of the work. In addition, the Chair and Cllr Philippa Roe are scheduled to meet with Chief Executives’ Group to review progress before Easter. Developing the Proposition

13. The operational work to develop more detailed propositions is now underway and is being co-ordinated by the Devolution and Public Service Reform Chief Executives’ Group, facilitated by London Councils. In light of the agreed joint approach with the Mayor of London, the group now includes the GLA’s Head of Paid Service.

14. The objective of this phase of work is to develop credible propositions for discussion with officials before the General Election. These should demonstrate the serious intent of London government - the Borough Leaders and the Mayor. They should also provide a detailed foundation for rapid progress engaging with the next government once its policy priorities emerge following the general election.

15. A sub-group led by the Chief Executive of the City of Westminster Council, had been set up to lead the detailed work. Building on the themes agreed by Leaders’ Committee the five areas of focus are:

o Employment o Skills. o Health o Housing o Crime Community Safety and Criminal Justice.

16. The development of the propositions has begun with wide-ranging engagement with member authorities and officials. As a result of these discussions, it is increasingly clear that each of the five areas is likely to demand some different approaches to governance, geography and delivery.

17. The Crime, Community safety and Criminal Justice offers the opportunity of a clearer examination of the case for reform of parts of the criminal justice system. This would build on London Councils’ existing policy positions which have sought devolution to London in relation to complex dependency, tackling crime and reducing reoffending. Wider Debates on Devolution

18. London Councils will be focusing its work up to the election on the development of a devolution deal for London. This will, however, take place in the context of high-profile activity by other partners. These partnerships across the UK are an important contribution to our influence with national government. They help to ensure that the potential of the reform of public services through devolution to London is recognised as being as important as that in the rest of the country.

19. The Core Cities, the LGA and the GLA are planning a number of activities which London Councils will support:

- The Charter for Local Freedom was launched by the Core Cities in Glasgow on 9th February. The Charter has attracted national media attention and provided a hook for discussion about the importance of devolution to local government. The LGA are supporting the Charter and the GLA have indicated that the Mayor will also be supporting the Charter. A copy is attached as Appendix C.
- The Core Cities will be holding a series of ‘Devo Rallies’ in all their cities and they are in discussion with the GLA about planning one for London in the first week of March.

20. The LGA and London Councils are both supporting the Charter which aligns with their established stance on devolution. The Charter will also provide a useful opportunity for individual boroughs to engage local business, voluntary and public sector partners in the discussions about the positive benefits of the reform of public services through devolution, prior to local budget consultations which boroughs may hold in the run up to the Comprehensive Spending Review 2015.

Next Steps

21. As noted above, preparations are in hand to develop the initial public service reform proposition which will act as a platform for exploratory discussions at official level, in advance of the General Election. Progress with the development of the initial platform, which will be based around the previously agreed outline proposition, will be overseen by the Chair of London Councils and the Executive Group Lead Member for Devolution and Public Service Reform, Cllr Phillipa Roe. As the proposition evolves there will a series of further opportunities for boroughs and groups of boroughs to shape its development.

22. London - the Mayor and Borough Leaders – will then be positioned to use the platform to initiate a second phase of engagement after the General Election, offering London the potential opportunity to advance quickly in negotiations.

23. This second phase of engagement will take place alongside the likely Spending Review, which is expected to provide a driver for policy options which contribute to the significant overall spending and deficit reduction targets that a new government is expected to face. At this point, discussions with Ministers and officials may crystallise into a challenge to London to commit to stretching targets in terms of cost reductions, as well better outcomes, before concluding specific deals on reform and devolution. This could manifest itself differently for each of the five policy areas. In relation to employment, for example, the offer could be calibrated to show how the proposals will not only tackle unemployment, but also demonstrably reduce welfare spending. In relation to health and care, the headline challenge may be to demonstrate clear impact in reducing cost pressures on adult care as well as accident & emergency admissions.

24. Leaders may need to fully address these challenges quite swiftly after the General Election, and to shape any evolution of the propositions.

Conclusion

25. Pursuit of the London devolution and public service reform proposition, taken together with wider influencing work on devolution could provide a critical opportunity to influence the environment and finances of local government over the next five years.

26. A significant programme of work is now in hand to add operational detail to the proposals, and to assemble a platform which might gain traction in negotiation officials in advance of the General Election.

27. It is envisaged that these initial discussions will be followed after the General Election by the development of firmer propositions and supporting evidence, which could then become the basis of detailed negotiations with the new government.

28. Leaders’ Committee is asked to:

29. Note the progress made, including the work which is in hand to develop operational detail to support initial engagement with Government.

30. Note the potential to develop and deepen the work after the 2015 General Election and in the run up to the likely Comprehensive Spending Review.

31. Note the wider engagement work on devolution and reform which continues with partners and the opportunity to deepen engagement with business and the voluntary sector as part of on-going borough engagement.

Financial implications for London Councils None

Legal implications for London Councils As work to develop shared governance structures continues any recommendations would be subject to detailed legal advice.

Equalities implications for London Councils There are no direct equalities implications for London Councils as a result of this paper.

Attachments

Appendix A: Joint letter from Mayor and Chair of London Councils to the Chancellor of 12 December 2014. Appendix B: The Chancellor’s reply of 12 January 2015. Appendix C: A Modern Charter for Local Freedom Dear George

FURTHER DEVOLUTION TO LONDON

We are writing together as leading representatives of London Government to seek urgent discussions with you on a further devolution agreement for our capital city. We are copying our letter to the Leader of the House, given his responsibilities in respect of the Cabinet Committee on Devolution, as well as to Greg Clark, the Cities Minister, who encouraged London to approach Government to open such discussions when he spoke at the Centre for London Conference last month.

We represent the two key parts of London’s locally elected governance and we have worked closely together to identify the areas where we believe there should be a further discussion about the type and extent of devolution to London Government in the future. This would be devolution both to the Mayor of London and to the London boroughs – collectively and individually.

We should say at the outset that London’s united commitment to press for greater fiscal devolution remains at the heart of our view about a future devolution settlement. We are, however, proposing that our immediate discussions centre on the reform of public services in London where we believe further devolution is key to:

- driving economic growth;
- integrating local public services in a way that helps deliver better outcomes for Londoners through a period of significant public finance austerity as we move towards the next Spending Review period;
- focusing attention on the potential of more devolved and integrated services in London, particularly at the level of boroughs and groups of boroughs, to work with those individuals with the most complex dependencies in order to prevent costly failure and allow us to manage better the future demand on public resources. It is this focus that the Cities Minister, among others, has encouraged us to adopt.

Our emerging proposals build upon the steps that we agreed with the Government in our Growth Deal earlier this year. In particular, it builds upon some of the pilot schemes agreed then and now being finalised with your colleagues on helping those furthest from the labour market back into work.

The areas that we wish to discuss are of a similar type to those you have discussed with the Greater Manchester Combined Authority and which, we believe, the Government will be discussing with other City Region areas.

The appendix to this letter sets out the areas that have been subject of discussions between the Mayor and Borough Leaders. We are working to develop more detailed propositions in each of these areas, including analysis of the sort of public service and financial benefits that we would be able to commit to were further devolution to be secured.

We would welcome an early joint discussion on how we can progress further work with you on a further London devolution agreement between us all.

We look forward to hearing from you.

With best wishes,

Boris Johnson Mayor of London

Mayor Jules Pipe Chair, London Councils

Appendix

Cc: Rt Hon William Hague MP, Leader of the House of Commons Rt Hon Greg Clark, Minister of State for Cities Appendix

Devolution and Public Service Reform in London

Introduction

This paper sets out the areas where London government wishes to initiate joint negotiations with Government on a proposition for devolution and reform of public services in London. It focuses on:

- Skills
- Employment
- Complex Dependency
- Housing
- Health

The paper also discusses proposals for governance of newly devolved responsibilities, based on the existing joint working arrangements between London boroughs and the Mayor.

Context

The core proposition is that London, like other cities, should have significant responsibilities devolved from the national level, allowing us to stimulate growth and deliver more effective outcomes.

Tackling these issues locally, through integrated working, will allow us to focus on avoiding the costs of failure and to manage services sustainably in the face of rising demand and continuing fiscal restraint.

Broad propositions for each of these areas are set out below, drawing on work developed by London Councils with the Mayor of London, both as part of the London Growth Deal process and more widely.

This proposition focuses on reforming public services to drive better outcomes for Londoners. There is also an agreed London proposition on fiscal devolution which is set out in the London Finance Commission’s report. This also has the support of the Mayor and London Councils and will allow London to develop the infrastructure it urgently needs for the decades ahead. That proposition continues to be supported, but is not the immediate focus of this paper.

Pursuit of this package of devolution will create a powerful platform to tackle the challenges that London faces, though a partnership of the Mayor and boroughs, working at the most appropriate levels.

To ensure that appropriate leadership and accountability is in place for these newly devolved powers, the London boroughs and the Mayor will work jointly, through existing and, over time, potentially strengthened governance arrangements as canvassed in this document.

The powers sought and the governance arrangements to support them do not take any powers away from any existing local or regional authority. The sovereignty of individual authorities in respect of existing functions remains unaffected and paramount. Skills London urgently requires the devolution of significant responsibilities over the skills budget, to tackle the failure of current training provision to be responsive to local economic need. This has resulted in skills deficits that affect both job seekers and businesses.

The London devolution package should cover a range of programmes at the heart of which is funding for FE provision. There is also a need for more effectively tailored apprenticeship and careers advice at London level. All these funds should be devolved to London.

FE funding incentives within the SFA’s skills budget should be set at London level through a collaboration of the London Mayor and the boroughs. Within our current agreements this would occur through the LEP. However, it will be important that decisions on incentives are informed through information gathered at the level of voluntary borough partnerships.

- Boroughs to co-ordinate data collection from local business across sub-regional partnerships;
- Borough Partnerships’ information to have formal role in informing LEP decision making on FE funding;
- Existing formal requirements for collaboration/discussion between boroughs and local FE colleges to be formally reported and integrated in LEP FE Funding decision processes.

A similar model of pan-London decision making through an equal collaboration of borough partnerships and London Mayor and supported by detailed management at borough partnership level should be applied to a new:

- London Careers Service
- London Apprentice Service

Complex Dependency The Troubled Families model for addressing complex needs, drawing on the pooling of departmental budgets to allow locally developed, personalised, ‘wrap around’ interventions, should be extended to other relevant groups of individuals with complex needs, who are dependent on public services.

Devolution to London using this approach would allow local government to deliver significant improvements on the disparate range of nationally commissioned employment programmes and related welfare management programmes, which have failed to tackle long term unemployment effectively.

Devolution to London should include:

- All funding for employment of those furthest from work, typified by, but not confined to ESA claimants.
- Youth programmes for employment.
- Local welfare support programmes
- Co-commission with DWP the next phase of Work Programme in London

This basket of propositions builds on – but is not limited by – scope of the Central London Forward pilot that has been agreed as part of the 2014 London Growth Deal.

These would be run and/or commissioned, at the level of groupings of boroughs. Further opportunities for extending the model would allow local government to provide targeted wrap-around support for:

- Those who are **homeless**.
- Those that suffer from **drug or alcohol addiction**.
- Individuals with **mental health conditions** (in particular, support to obtain and remain in employment).
- Families and individuals in **low pay or no pay cycles** that may also have complex needs.
- **Persistent adult offenders** – where commissioning of re-offender services should be devolved from national level to that of groups of boroughs and managed to ensure that commissioned services can be integrated with borough level local services provided for offenders.

**Employment**

London government should jointly commission with DWP the next phase of the Work Programme in London.

Mainstream employment programmes for those closer to the labour market centre on Job Centre Plus. Work at this level could also benefit from further devolution.

**Housing**

Current plans and resources leave London far short of the minimum requirement for home building in London to keep pace with growing population. In times of austerity additional plans cannot rely solely on additional public funding.

- For this reason the boroughs’ ability to create value through change of land use is an essential part of any successful strategy.
- Leveraging existing assets to raise funds is a second essential route to provide resources when public funding is limited.
- Ensuring that different types of infrastructure – such as transport links and housing - complement each other in creating value is a third opportunity.

To support improved supply of housing, central government should devolve the following to London boroughs:

- The ability to charge developers for provision of better resourced and more effective planning service meeting pre-set targets for predictability, speed of decision making and technical competence.
- Freedom from limits – other than the Prudential Code – on borrowing against assets by London boroughs and TfL, including allowing greater borrowing against HRA assets and the revenue stream.
- The freedom to establish an exchange system for the additional borrowing headroom between boroughs (if the Prudential Code is applied to the HRA), to solve the problem of borrowing capacity being divorced from individual boroughs’ investment needs. Aligning investment requirements with resource would create a real opportunity to build new homes. Health The long-term challenges faced by health and social care services, including demographic pressures and technological advances are unlikely to be met through simple refinements to the current system. Given the leading role of social care and public health in providing the integrated responses that will be needed to tackle these challenges, London local government will be critical to shaping sustainable, locally embedded solutions for health.

The transfer of public health to local government has shown not only local government’s effectiveness as a health commissioner, but also the importance of a bottom up approach to commissioning, even where services are offered across many boroughs. Central government should strengthen London boroughs’ role in developing a sustainable approach to the health economy in London, by devolving to them the power to:

- Jointly agree health and care integration plans with the health sector as it impacts on their areas;
- Jointly agree plans with the health sector for the local primary care estate, funded from the underspend of DoH capital programme.
- Jointly commission primary care services in their areas with the health sector via local Health and Well Being Boards.

In addition, we will wish to discuss with Government the leadership recommendations of the London Health Commission.

Governance To ensure that appropriate leadership and accountability is in place for these newly devolved powers, the London boroughs and the Mayor will work jointly, by strengthening their existing governance and joint working arrangements.

Where delivery for devolved activities is primarily local, powers would simply be devolved directly to boroughs.

Where delivery is primarily at cross borough level, the new responsibilities secured for London would be transferred either to:

- the Mayor; or
- voluntary groupings of sovereign boroughs where it is possible to do so; or
- London Councils as an existing S101 Joint Committee of all the London boroughs and the City of London Corporation on behalf of London local government. In practice, London Councils would often devolve this operationally to voluntary confederations of sovereign boroughs – borough groupings.

The London boroughs and the Mayor will work jointly for London in providing oversight and strategic coherence to the pan London elements, by extending our existing working arrangements:

- A Congress of the Mayor and all London borough Leaders reaching joint decisions on overall strategic direction of these devolved public service areas;
- Strategic advice on maximising the economic benefits of improved public service will come from the LEP which will also continue in its core role to advise the Mayor on driving London’s future economic prosperity and growth. We believe that these arrangements will be adequate to allow devolution of the package of responsibilities, outlined above, to begin. However, we also recognise that we will need to ensure that the wider architecture of London government is robust enough to take on the full range of powers in the longer term. As part of that process, it will be necessary to negotiate a package of reforms for inclusion as part of the overall process.

**The London Proposition**

This package of public service devolution proposals set out above is matched by a practical reform offer from London government, that will see the Mayor and London boroughs focus on a joint endeavour of integrated working to tackle the costs of failure and to manage services sustainably in the face of rising demand and continuing fiscal restraint.

We have a coherent offer around governance arrangements that would allow devolution to begin, but recognise that negotiation on devolution with national government which will include potential enhancements of the supporting governance systems.

The package offers clear benefits for Londoners, the economy in London and in the country as a whole. Thank you for your letter of 12 December regarding devolution to London.

As I have previously said through the Northern Powerhouse work, the Government is very happy to discuss further devolution to cities.

The Government has devolved significant powers to London. The Localism Act 2011 passed responsibility for housing, economic development and the Olympic legacy. This is in addition to transport, planning and the police which is already controlled by the Greater London Authority. As a consequence, London is now largely independent of national government in many areas.

I understand that you have already began discussions with Greg Clark on further devolution to London, with particular reference to skills and employment. I would suggest you continue to discuss these proposals with Greg and his officials.

I look forward to hearing of the progress made.

I am copying this letter to the Minister for Cities and the Leader of the House of Commons. A MODERN CHARTER FOR LOCAL FREEDOM

In 1215 the Magna Carta set out the first constitutional freedoms for England. In turn, it influenced all of Britain and the rest of the world, creating the foundations of modern parliamentary democracy and the rule of law. That historic act questioned the divine right of royalty to rule arbitrarily on matters for the whole country. Today, we question the right of central government to dictate so much of what local government does, and what local people can decide.

800 years on there is a need to think once again about how we build a modern, mature state for the UK, capable of succeeding equally at every level from the global to the local. Achieving this means handing some powers and functions further down the line, empowering citizens with more local choice to address the urgent challenges of: driving prosperity, increasing equality and strengthening democracy.

Prosperity. Internationally, cities and regions have more freedom to shape their localities than those in the UK and deliver more economic growth because of that. Despite progress on national devolution and City and County Deals, we remain one of the most centralised states in the world, so risk being left behind in a hard fought global race for growth. The evidence shows that devolution will deliver more growth and jobs.

Equality. Despite the reductions in public expenditure in recent years, significant sums are still being spent on demand failure such as crime, poor health and unemployment. At a time of constrained budgets, localities need the freedom to radically reform and improve public services and put them on a sustainable footing so that we can offer opportunities to everyone in our communities. This cannot be done from a distant centre; action has to be joined up locally, getting solutions closer to problems, services closer to people. By linking policies for economic growth to those for service reform within places, we can strengthen local economies, get more people into jobs and save public money.

Democracy. This Charter is a major opportunity to reverse the loss of faith in politics and strengthen civil society, which cannot be restored by remote national governments. Greater local power is the only way to strengthen both local and national democracy, giving people a stake in their own future, trusting them to make the right choices for where they live.

At the dawn of the industrial revolution Britain led the world in industry, infrastructure and economy, coupled with celebrated social reforms in planning, health and justice that still echo down the ages. Local power may have been eroded, but local ambition and vision has not. With more freedom Britain’s local leadership can drive the next economic revolution and make sure everyone can share in the rewards.

We welcome devolution to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, but what’s good enough for nations is good enough for cities, towns and counties, which should be afforded greater freedom, each according to their proven need and ability to deliver, across all the UK’s borders. And devolution must not stop with councils, their business and other partners, but seek to push power down ever further to neighbourhoods and individuals, the right controls at the right level.

This Modern Charter calls for a different relationship between local and national governments and devolution based on clear practical outcomes for the people of Britain. Devolution is more than just passing powers from one centralising parliament to another. We propose to fundamentally shift the balance of power and responsibility from a remote Westminster, Holyrood and Cardiff Bay to local people who know their places best, putting the principles of this Charter into new legislation with cross-party support.

This is a low-risk, high-impact strategy for securing a bolder, better national future: creating jobs, improving lives, renewing democracy. Delivering what our businesses and our people want. Now is the time to commit to the following three point plan. A Modern Charter for Local Freedom: to Decide, to Invest, to Deliver.

1. **Freedom to decide: independence, but not one size fits all**

Local freedom will look different in different places, and should be a matter of local choice. What works for a big city may not be the same for a London borough, smaller town or rural area, but each should have access to the freedoms they need, judged not by vested interests, but fairly and independently.

Based on the RSA City Growth Commission recommendations, Government should immediately establish an independent body to receive proposals and oversee the transfer of freedoms from the centre to local people and places, based on publicly available criteria.

Over the longer term, we should establish full constitutional and legal independence between central and local government, not with the aim of one rejecting the other, but so the right responsibilities are held at the right level, joining up delivery more effectively in places. This should be based on the principles of the Political and Constitutional Reform Select Committee, extended across the UK’s borders.

2. **Freedom to invest: prosperous places, not stagnant states**

Devolution to the nations of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are welcomed, but we will not stop there. Centralising power, whether in Holyrood, Cardiff Bay or Westminster, is bad for economies, and further devolution should be available to cities and other places that want it across the UK. This should ultimately include more control over some taxes - not to raise the level of taxes – but to improve efficiency, get a better return on public investment, and create more local investment for infrastructure, housing, jobs.

Places that want it and meet the criteria should be able to retain the proceeds from selected taxes, including property taxes and a percentage of income tax, to redesign places and how they are developed, investing to create growth and jobs as well as improving delivery of previously centralised services. With more local control over resources, policies for growth can be linked to service reforms, strengthening economies, creating jobs and saving public money.

We also need a mature national debate on how we can fully devolve some taxes into local control over the longer term, in consultation with business and local communities, within a system that doesn’t disadvantage places that don’t have a strong tax base to start with.

3. **Freedom to deliver: better services, improved lives**

Local services are vital to local quality of life and place, fundamental to a strong business environment, yet they are under pressure like never before. Devolving control will mean places can remove duplication, align services, get better results, save money.

In light of recent Devolution Deals, Government should make the following available to those that want it and can show they will deliver.

- **Skills and jobs.** Locally tailored skills provision to meet the needs of business and get more people into the jobs they train for. Locally commissioned welfare to work programmes bringing more people out of unemployment.

- **Transport.** Devolved and joined up long-term transport funds, freedom to deliver bus regulation, local train station policy and smart ticketing.

- **Business, trade and investment.** Fully, locally integrated business support, trade and investment budgets and services to simplify and get more bang per pound of investment.

- **Housing.** Freedom to decide how housing funds are best spent locally, to an agreed plan for increased housing numbers. **Planning.** Freedom to create a statutory spatial strategy for city regions, linked to economic plans, managing land to maximise growth and development.

**Public Sector Reform.** Freedom to join up services at a local level to deliver better outcomes including those for: Early Years; Complex Families; and Health and Social Care integration.

**Police.** The freedom to take responsibility for Policing into locally determined governance structures.

A fundamentally different approach to public spending is required, changing the way Whitehall departments and government agencies work, making them more accountable at the local level, devolving ‘Whole-Place Budgets’ for as much of public spending across different services and agencies as places want, where they can show they can deliver and improve results.

**In return:** local government and other local agency signatories to this Charter commit to:

- Create stronger local economies, more growth and jobs, more people into work.
- Invest more in housing, transport and other infrastructure.
- Radically improve local services and service choice, transforming results.
- Devolve decision making even further down to communities, neighbourhoods and individuals.

**An historic opportunity exists** to once again determine a new and different path for Britain, a modern, mature state, succeeding globally, delivering locally in: driving prosperity; increasing equality; and strengthening local and national democracy. We the undersigned commit to this Modern Charter which embodies that opportunity. Its delivery is Britain’s best bet for a brighter future.

We base all our proposals on evidence. The details of how policies can operate, the what, when, how and why of devolution can be found in a series of reports [here](#). Summary: This report provides Members with an update on the progress of the project to renew approximately 950,000 Freedom Passes due to expire on 31 March 2015.

Recommendations: Members are asked to:

1. Note the progress on the Freedom Pass 2015 reissue since the last report to the Executive on 20 January 2015. Freedom Pass 2015 Reissue Update

Background

1. London Councils is in the process of reissuing circa 950,000 Freedom Passes. The passes, which have a five year life, expire on 31 March 2015. As part of the reissue, London Councils will check the continued eligibility of all passholders.

2. A report to the London Councils Executive on 20 January 2015 informed members on the process for the 2015 Freedom Pass renewal and this report provides a progress update. Around 850,000 older and 101,000 disabled Freedom Pass holders have been invited to renew their passes either on line via a web portal or by post. LB Camden is handling its own renewal of just under 20,000 older passholders separately.

Progress on the Older Persons 2015 Reissue

3. In advance of the letters being sent to ask older passholders to reapply for their replacement passes, London Councils held six training sessions on the new online application portal for around 90 concessionary fares and library officers. At least one officer attended from each London borough. The training was designed to enable attendees to cascade the training notes to colleagues to help applicants apply via the portal if they have difficulty doing so on their own.

4. Letters to older person passholders whose passes expire on 31 March 2015 were sent over a six week period from early November to mid-December.

5. London Councils receives daily reports from ESP Systex, the Freedom Pass contractor handling the letters and card production, on the numbers of applications received and processed, and the number of replacement passes dispatched. JourneyCall, the contact centre contractor, also reports on the number of phone calls and e-mails received, including the main issues raised by passholders.

6. London Councils and the contractors use this information to make developments to the portal, for instance providing a clearer explanation of the renewal options for two people who share the same e-mail address.

7. The response rate has been encouraging so far with 636,869 (74%) of those written to having already responded to date (2 February 2015). This number broken down below excludes Camden’s renewals.

- 467,251 online renewals (74% of passes renewed)
- 169,618 postal renewals (26% of passes renewed)

08. Fifty-eight per cent of those renewing online have set up an account with an e-mail address, whereas 42% applied via the fast track option without an e-mail address. There are a number of benefits to passholders of setting up an account, such as receiving an e-mail when the pass is sent out and being able to change details online in the future. It will also be very useful and cost-effective to London Councils and the boroughs to be able to contact a large percentage of Freedom Pass holders via e-mail in the future.

09. The current rate of renewal has exceeded London Councils’ expectation that half of those due to renew their passes would have done so by Christmas. London Councils expects to reach the majority of the remaining passholders through its publicity campaign (see below).

10. It should also be noted that based on the experience of people transferring from the Mayor’s 60+ scheme, London Councils anticipates that a significant number of passholders will not renew. In the case of the 60+ scheme this was up to 15%. Reasons for non-renewal include; moving out of London, death, or ineligibility for the scheme (mostly applicable to disabled passholders).

11. Appendix 1 shows the number renewed online and by post to date in relation to the number of letters sent and Appendix 2 gives a borough by borough breakdown of passes renewed so far¹.

12. The number of phone calls and e-mails to the contact centre has been significantly lower than expected, which appears to suggest that most passholders understand the renewal options without having to ask for assistance.

13. One hundred and nineteen thousand replacement 2020 passes have now been posted to those who have successfully renewed in the order in which the applications were received. It

¹ Members are asked to note that the figures provided in Appendix 2 do not match the figures listed in this report, as borough details are not held on the portal and are only confirmed once the record has been validated on the CMS. The borough breakdown is from the CMS and is always 48 hours behind. is anticipated that all passholders who have renewed by the end of February 2015 will have had their passes issued by mid-March.

Communications and Publicity

14. London Councils has provided London-wide branded posters, leaflets, roller banners or online adverts to boroughs that requested them. 29 boroughs have requested quantities of these publicity materials. Pan-London publicity uses the ‘London Councils’ logo as a catch-all brand. These are on the London Councils website as a toolkit for boroughs to use. Borough communications teams have also used their expertise and channels to promote renewal in addition to London Councils’ campaign. Borough communications teams are free to put their logo on publicity material where they are funding the production costs of such materials.

15. Advertising of the re-issue started in November, covering local newspapers and internet adverts. TfL is providing free space on their advertising network to help publicise the renewal programme. Posters appeared on the transport network from 16 January and will be shown for four weeks, appearing inside buses, on bus shelters, tube ticket offices, platforms of Overground, and ATOC (the Association of Train Operating Companies) is also providing advertising on the suburban train network. The main purpose of the New Year advertising campaign is to target those yet to respond to their letters reminding them to do so if they wish to continue to travel for free.

16. A briefing on the renewal was issued to all MPs, councillors and GLA members on 29 October to inform them of the renewal procedures, and a further briefing was sent on 17 December. Further briefings will be issued where appropriate.

17. Although to date progress on renewal has been encouraging, officers will continue to monitor the number of renewals closely on a daily basis and respond to any issues that arise. Responses are analysed on a borough by borough basis, and where the of rate renewals causes concern, targeted additional publicity will be used where this is appropriate and effective.

18. In line with previous renewals, a one month grace period has been agreed with TfL and ATOC to allow passholders to show their passes as a flash pass between 1 and 30 April 2015. London Councils is now proposing that this be extended to mid-May. Anyone not renewing after that time would not be allowed to travel until they renew their passes.

19. Customers who have renewed their Freedom Pass have been informed that they can expect to receive their new passes between between January and March. Those who have set up accounts on line can check if and when their new pass has been dispatched using the on-line tracker.

20. London Councils is monitoring calls to the call centre where people are enquiring about the dispatch of their new cards as well as monitoring any feedback on this issue from the boroughs. At present the number of calls regarding this is very low (35) and there has been little feedback from the boroughs.

21. Our focus remains on encouraging customers to renew their passes in time to have their new passes by 31 March. However, should the number of enquiries about receipt of passes increase, London Councils will consider appropriate measures to deal with the issue such as updating communications messaging.

**Disabled Passholder Applications**

22. Due to the large volume of new cards to be produced, London Councils and boroughs agreed a deadline of 31 December 2014 for reassessing their own Disabled Pass holders. Disabled passholders are not using the online portal and boroughs are writing to them separately.

23. Thirty of the 33 boroughs have hotlisted (stopped) the disabled passes of those no longer deemed eligible either because they no longer meet the eligibility criteria, have moved out of London or are deceased by that date to ensure they do not receive replacement passes.

24. In addition, several boroughs have also taken the opportunity to convert older holders of disabled passes to older persons passes. These measures are intended to reduce administrative and bureaucratic pressure in the future. However, in a limited number of individual cases, this has resulted in some passes being cancelled before new passes are issued.

25. Replacement 2020 passes will be issued to all disabled pass-holders who are still eligible. Dispatch began in early January and will be completed in good time for the deadline of 31 March 2015.

Consultation

26. London Councils will continue to consult with members, borough officers and other stakeholders throughout the reissue process. The principal forum for consultation is the monthly project board meeting that brings together borough officers, contractors, TfL, ATOC and London Councils’ communications team.

27. Meetings have been held with Transport for All and Age UK and London Councils officers have given presentations on the renewal at a number of borough mobility forums including Greenwich, Hackney, Hillingdon and Wandsworth.

Renewal Budget

28. Expenditure to date is £664,488 out of an approved budget of £3.141 million. However, this does not include the bulk of costs relating to JourneyCall’s handling of phone calls and e-mails and card production and postage. Indications are that the renewal will be delivered within budget, which is helped by the lower than expected number of phone calls and e-mails being made by passholders so far.

Recommendations

Members are asked to:

1. Note the progress on the Freedom Pass 2015 reissue since the last report to Executive in January 2015

Financial Implications for London Councils

None

Legal Implications for London Councils

None

Equalities Implications for London Councils

None Background Papers

Executive – Freedom Pass 2015 Reissue Update – 20 January 2015 (Item 4) TEC – Freedom Pass 2015 Reissue Update – 11 December 2014 (Item 11) TEC – Freedom Pass 2015 Reissue Update - 16 October 2014 (Item 7) TEC – Freedom Pass 2015 Reissue Update - 17 July 2014 (Item 10) TEC – Update on Freedom Pass Projects - 13 March 2014 (Item 7) TEC – Freedom Pass Bulk Reissue 2015 - 12 December 2013 (Item 11) APPENDIX 1 - Progress of Freedom Pass Older Persons Renewal

Number of Older Person's Passes Renewed to Date

- Cumulative total of letters sent
- Cumulative total online renewals
- Cumulative total paper renewals
- Total successful renewals

## APPENDIX 2: BOROUGH BY BOROUGH BREAKDOWN OF RENEWALS

| Borough | Number Renewed Online | % renewed online | Number Renewed Paper | % Renewed Paper | Total Number Renewed | Total % Passes Renewed | Number of Passes Expiring 2015 | |-------------------------------|-----------------------|------------------|----------------------|-----------------|----------------------|------------------------|-------------------------------| | Barking & Dagenham | 7579 | 50.08% | 4584 | 30.29% | 12163 | 80.37% | 15134 | | Barnet | 25180 | 57.38% | 7674 | 17.49% | 32854 | 74.87% | 43882 | | Bexley | 21795 | 61.20% | 7997 | 22.46% | 29792 | 83.66% | 35612 | | Brent | 16317 | 51.72% | 5956 | 18.88% | 22273 | 70.60% | 31548 | | Bromley | 31550 | 61.49% | 10026 | 19.54% | 41576 | 81.02% | 51313 | | Camden¹ | 15274 | 77.95% | 2167 | 11.06% | 17441 | 89.01% | 19594 | | City of London | 669 | 54.84% | 202 | 16.56% | 871 | 71.39% | 1220 | | City of Westminster | 11225 | 47.87% | 4036 | 17.21% | 15261 | 65.08% | 23448 | | Croydon | 25310 | 57.79% | 8109 | 18.52% | 33419 | 76.31% | 43794 | | Ealing | 19346 | 54.78% | 6806 | 19.27% | 26152 | 74.05% | 35317 | | Enfield | 21305 | 57.62% | 6933 | 18.75% | 28238 | 76.37% | 36974 | | Greenwich | 13352 | 54.29% | 5486 | 22.31% | 18838 | 76.60% | 24593 | | Hackney | 7723 | 46.51% | 3713 | 22.36% | 11436 | 68.87% | 16604 | | Hammersmith and Fulham | 7823 | 52.23% | 3237 | 21.61% | 11060 | 73.84% | 14979 | | Haringey | 11697 | 53.39% | 4246 | 19.38% | 15943 | 72.77% | 21908 | | Harrow | 19108 | 59.99% | 5228 | 16.41% | 24336 | 76.40% | 31853 | | Havering | 23674 | 60.06% | 8614 | 21.85% | 32288 | 81.92% | 39416 | | Hillingdon | 19442 | 59.44% | 6745 | 20.62% | 26187 | 80.07% | 32707 | | Hounslow | 15064 | 57.33% | 5045 | 19.20% | 20109 | 76.52% | 26278 | | Islington | 8606 | 52.67% | 3816 | 23.36% | 12422 | 76.03% | 16339 | | Kensington and Chelsea | 8658 | 47.55% | 3413 | 18.74% | 12071 | 66.29% | 18210 | | Kingston upon Thames | 11572 | 58.29% | 3890 | 19.60% | 15462 | 77.89% | 19851 | | Lambeth | 10770 | 47.65% | 4837 | 21.40% | 15607 | 69.05% | 22603 | | Lewisham | 12520 | 52.94% | 5295 | 22.39% | 17815 | 75.33% | 23650 | | Merton | 12411 | 55.25% | 4653 | 20.71% | 17064 | 75.96% | 22463 | | Newham | 9116 | 46.67% | 3897 | 19.95% | 13013 | 66.62% | 19534 | | Borough | Renewed | Renewal Rate | Rejected | Total | Renewal Rate | Total | |-----------------------|---------|--------------|----------|-------|--------------|-------| | Redbridge | 17531 | 55.02% | 6086 | 23617 | 74.12% | 31863 | | Richmond upon Thames | 14851 | 60.83% | 4380 | 19231 | 78.77% | 24415 | | Southwark | 10114 | 46.95% | 4886 | 15000 | 69.63% | 21543 | | Sutton | 20468 | 80.15% | 0 | 20468 | 80.15% | 25536 | | Tower Hamlets | 6493 | 43.79% | 3023 | 9516 | 64.18% | 14827 | | Waltham Forest | 12354 | 52.55% | 5260 | 17614 | 74.93% | 23508 | | Wandsworth | 13458 | 51.69% | 4913 | 18371 | 70.56% | 26035 | | **Total** | **482355** | **56.31%** | **165153** | **647508** | **75.59%** | **856551** |

**Note**

1. Camden is automatically renewing 15,200 residents who passed internal residence checks. Camden is not offering an online option and those renewed online moved into Camden after receiving their letter in another borough.
2. The percentage renewed in each borough is of the total to be renewed - not of letters sent to date.
3. The figures contained in this appendix lag the cumulative figures from the portal by 48 hours. Leaders’ Committee

Summaries and Minutes

Item no: 7

Report by: Derek Gadd\
Job title: Head of Governance

Date: 10th February 2015

Contact Officer: Derek Gadd

Telephone: 020 7934 9505\
Email: Derek.gadd@londoncouncils.gov.uk

Summary

Summaries of the minutes of London Councils’ Capital Ambition Board, Transport & Environment Committee, Grants Executive Committee and Pensions CIV Sectoral Joint Committee.

Recommendations

Leader’s Committee is recommended to note the attached summaries:

- Grants Committee – 26 November 2014
- Capital Ambition Board – 3 December 2014
- Transport & Environment Committee – 11 December 2014
- Pensions CIV Sectoral Joint Committee – 17 December 2014 Leaders’ Committee

Report from the London Councils Grants Committee – 26 November 2014

Report by: Ana Gradiska Job title: Principal Governance and Projects Officer Date: 10 February 2014 Contact Officer: Ana Gradiska Telephone: 020 7934 9911 Email: Ana.gradiska@londoncouncils.gov.uk

Summary: Summary of the minutes of the London Councils’ Grants Committee meeting held on 26 November 2014

Recommendations: For information.

1. Attendance: Cllr Darren Rodwell (LB Barking and Dagenham), Cllr Daniel Thomas (LB Barnet), Cllr Stephen Carr (LB Bromley), Alison Gowman (Dep – City of London), Cllr Yvonne Johnson (Dep – LB Ealing), Cllr Yasemin Brett (LB Enfield), Cllr Feryal Demirci (Dep – LB Hackney), Cllr Sue Fennimore (LB Hammersmith & Fulham), Cllr Bernice Vanier (Dep - LB Haringey), Cllr Sue Anderson (LB Harrow), Cllr Melvin Wallace (LB Havering), Cllr Rakhia Ismail (LB Islington), Cllr Gerard Hargreaves (RB Kensington & Chelsea), Cllr Julie Pickering (RB Kingston upon Thames), Cllr Joan Millbank (LB Lewisham), Cllr Paul McGlone (Chair – LB Lambeth), Cllr Caroline Cooper-Marbiah (Dep – LB Merton), Cllr Forhad Hussain (LB Newham), Cllr Dev Sharma (LB Redbridge), Cllr Simon Wales (LB Sutton), Cllr Liaquat Ali (LB Waltham Forest), Cllr Guy Senior (Dep – LB Wandsworth). Samantha Mauger from Age UK London was in attendance for item 5 (“Thematic Review’). London Councils’ officers were also in attendance.

2. Apologies for absence

Apologies were received from Cllr Gareth Bacon (LB Bexley), Cllr Muhammed Butt (LB Brent), Jeremy Mayhew (City of London), Cllr Jonathan McShane (LB Hackney), Cllr Peter Morton (LB Haringey), Cllr Edith Macauley (LB Merton), Cllr Meena Bond (LB Richmond), Cllr Ian Wingfield (LB Southwark), Cllr James Maddan (LB Wandsworth), Cllr Steve Summers (LB Westminster), Cllr Ranjit Dheer (LB Ealing) and Cllr Douglas Mills (LB Hillingdon).

3. Deputies Declaration of Attendance

Alison Gowman deputized for Jeremy Mayhew (City of London), Cllr Yvonne Johnson deputised for Cllr Ranjit Dheer (LB Ealing), Cllr Feryal Demirci deputized for Cllr Jonathan McShane (LB Hackney), Cllr Bernice Vanier deputized for Cllr Peter Morton (LB Haringey), Cllr Caroline Cooper-Marbiah deputized for Cllr Edith Macauley (LB Merton), and Cllr Guy Senior deputized for Cllr Steve Summers (City of Westminster).

4. Minutes of the Grants Committee AGM held on 16 July 2014.

3.1 The minutes were agreed as an accurate record of the meeting which took place on 16 July 2014. 5. Performance of Grants Programme

Simon Courage, Head of Grants, introduced the report and said that, every quarter, London Councils officers produced a report on progress of the programme overall. He then detailed the progress for each of the priorities: Priority 1 – Homelessness, which performed 41% above profile overall for Quarters 1 and 2; Priority 2 - Domestic and Sexual Violence, which performed 15% above profile for Quarters 1 and 2; Priority 3 – ESF, which performed 3% below profile for Quarters 1 and 2; Priority 4 - Capacity building in the voluntary sector, which performed 11% above profile for Quarters 1 and 2.

The Chair reminded members that a visit was due to take place next week to one of the funded commissions, Galop, and that there was one space left. He invited interested Members to speak to London Councils’ officers if they were interested in joining the visit.

6. Thematic Review – Priority Four: Capacity building in the voluntary community sector – Age UK London

Samantha Mauger from Age UK London gave a presentation on the Fit 4 Purpose programme:

7. Review of Projects

Recommendations 1-5 of the paper were agreed by the Committee. These recommendations were: Recommendation 1: to note the review framework; Recommendation 2: to note the Grants programme framework; Recommendation 3: to note the strong performance of the projects in 2013/14; Recommendation 4: to agree the proposed new primary outcome indicators for the priority 1,2 and 4 projects for 2015-16, and indicatively for 2016-17; Recommendation 5: to agree that the budget for priorities 1, 2 and 4 projects should remain the same in 2015-16 as in 2014-15 (although Cllr Carr wanted it noted that this may not be sustainable in the long run and that getting further value for money from commissions was paramount, especially in light of further cuts to LA budgets).

The Grants Committee then considered Recommendation 6: that the Grants Committee recommend to the Leaders' Committee that the boroughs should commit £1 million combined to priority 3 – ESF – Tackling Poverty through employment in 2015-16, as they have done over the two year period 2013-15. This recommendation formed part of the budget proposals for 2015-16, which were subject to a separate report at item 8. This recommendation was not agreed unanimously and so the matter was put to a vote. There were 15 members in favour of the motion, 5 members against, and one abstention. The motion was passed.

The Grants Committee then considered Recommendation 7 – for the Committee to approve, subject to final approval by the Leaders’ Committee, the extension of existing 10 priority 3: ESF Tackling Poverty Through employment projects from the end of March 2015 to the end of June 2015. These projects will work to extended primary outcome indicators, to ensure value for money. The cost of this will be £500,000. 50% to be met by ESF and 50% to come from either the annual £1 million boroughs’ contribution to the programme for 2015-16 or could be met from uncommitted S48 reserves of £670,000 which are highlighted in paragraphs 13 to 16 of Item 7 on the agenda, which outlines the half-year forecast for the current year. This will, therefore, entail a ninth quarter of spending on the 2013-15 S.48/ESF programme. This recommendation did not receive unanimous consent, so the matter was put to a vote. There were 15 members in favour of the motion, 5 members against, and one abstention. The motion was passed.

Recommendation 8, where the Committee was asked to agree that London Councils’ officers should work with legal advisers to make a planned change in the name of the Committee and programme and should work with communications specialists in London Councils to communicate the new brand and name, was agreed and will be put forward at a future Leaders’ Committee. Recommendation 9, where the Committee was asked to agree that London Councils’ officers should set up a task and finish group to develop a strategy for stronger relationships between the programme and the boroughs, was also agreed.

8. Month 6 Revenue Forecast 2014/15

Director of Corporate Resources introduced this report which outlines actual income and expenditure against the approved budget to the end of September 2014 for the Grants Committee and provides a forecast of the outturn position for 2014/15 for both actual and committed grants expenditure and grants administration. At the month 6 stage, a surplus of £52,000 was forecast over the approved budget figure.

9. London Councils Grants Scheme - Budget Proposals 2015/16

Members were informed that this report considers the proposed budget for the Grants Scheme for 2015/16 and makes a recommendation to the Committee on the appropriate level to recommend to constituent councils for approval, subject to the agreement of the overall budget by Leaders’ Committee. The Director of Corporate Resources indicated that the proposed expenditure budget of £10 million would increase to £10.5 million due the decision of the Committee in respect of Item 6 on this agenda. However, there would be no increase in the proposed level of borough contributions to the scheme for 2015/16. This would be subject to the Leaders’ Committee approval on 9 December. The Chair said that the recommendations for this item were already discussed and agreed during discussions relating to Item 6. Leaders’ Committee

Report from the Capital Ambition Board Item no: meeting – 3 December 2014

Report by: Ana Gradiska Job title: Principal Governance and Projects Officer Date: 10 February 2014 Contact Officer: Ana Gradiska Telephone: 020 7934 9911 Email: Ana.gradiska@londoncouncils.gov.uk

Summary: Summary of the minutes of the London Councils’ Capital Ambition Board meeting held on 3 December 2014

Recommendations: For information.

1. Attendance

Members Edward Lord OBE JP (Chair - City of London), Cllr Stephen Alambritis (LB Merton), Cllr Nicholas Paget-Brown (RB Kensington and Chelsea) London Councils Nick Lester (Corporate Director, Services), Frank Smith (Director of Corporate Resources), Mary Vine-Morris (Director, Capital Ambition), Lisa Henry (Capital Ambition Programme Manager), Aidan Rave (Programme Director, London Ventures) Advisers Martin Smith (Chief Executive, LB Ealing), Jane West (Director of Finance, LB Hammersmith and Fulham) Board Secretariat Ana Gradiska (Principal Governance and Projects Officer), Ernst & Young (EY) Darra Singh (Associate Partner, Government & Public Services), Neil Sartorio (Director, Local Public Services), Victoria Evans (Manager, Government & Public Services), Rupert Dewey (Civil Service) Secondee Partners Iqbal Vaza (LB Tower Hamlets), Matthew Wallbridge (LB Croydon) Hamza Yusuf (LB Hackney)

2. Apologies for absence

Cllr Jas Athwal (LB Redbridge), Cllr David Simmonds (LB Hillingdon), Mike O’Donnell (LB Camden), Nathan Elvery (LB Croydon), Rob Leak (LB Enfield), and Rita Dexter OBE (LFEPA)

3. Minutes of the non-exempt part of the meeting held on 13 October 2014

The minutes were agreed as an accurate record of the non-exempt part of the meeting held on 13 October 2014. 4. Director’s Report

4.1 London Councils’ Corporate Director, Services introduced the report, which set out progress on the active projects: WLA Property and Asset Management (CA507) – GREEN status; London Ventures initiative (CA526) – AMBER status; London Ventures Spacehive (CA527) – GREEN status; Blue Prism exemplar – Croydon (CA528) – GREEN status; Xantura pilot – Hackney (CA529) – GREEN status; and Xantura pilot – Tower Hamlets (CA530) - GREEN. The Corporate Director reported that the Capital Ambition annual report 2013/14 was launched at the London Councils’ Summit on 22 November, and that the current balance (net of commitments) was £3.30m, correct at 31 October 2014.

5. London Ventures Progress Report

CA Board was updated on the progress of the nine ventures that are currently part of the London Ventures portfolio, noted the distance from financial self-sustainability, and was updated on the progress of the investment cases, as agreed at the CA Board in October 2014. EY reported that significant progress had been made on London Ventures since the last meeting. Promotion of the opportunities at various events, including the London Councils’ Summit has resulted in the team being invited to present to four borough senior leadership team meetings in early 2015. In addition, a number of local authorities have formally signed up to Ventures: Blue Prism: LB Croydon has signed up and has now entered the implementation stage; Xantura: LB Tower Hamlets and LB Hackney have signed up and are now in the implementation stage; Oxygen Finance: LB Bexley, LB Croydon and LB Lewisham have all signed a letter of engagement; Spacehive: LB Camden, LB Croydon, LB Harrow, LB Ealing, LB Hackney and the GLA have signed up and are now in the implementation stage; Additionally, LB Ealing has recently been awarded DCLG funding for the Fraud Prevention Hub programme. EY officers brought members’ attention to the revised cash-flow projections.

6. London Ventures investment case – feedback from the boroughs grant funded: Croydon; Hackney and Tower Hamlets.

Iqbal Vaza from LB Tower Hamlets, Matthew Wallbridge from LB Croydon and Hamza Yusuf from LB Hackney spoke about their experience in implementing Blue Prism and Xantura London Ventures, as a result of the investment in pilot sites agreed at the October CA Board meeting. Members said they were very encouraged by the potential of the London Ventures described by the presentations, and they asked London Councils’ officers to invite the presenters to a future meeting of the Board to give an update on how the projects were progressing.

Returning to the final recommendation on item 5; Members agreed to the continuation of the London Ventures programme.

7. Any Other Business

The Chair announced that this was Mary Vine-Morris’ – the Capital Ambition Director’s – last CAB meeting. Members and EY officers thanked Mary for all the hard work she had done on the programme and said that she had played a major role in the success of the programme. Leaders’ Committee

Report from the Transport & Environment Committee – 11 December 2014

Report by: Alan Edwards Job title: Governance Manager Date: 10 February 2014 Contact Officer: Alan Edwards Telephone: 020 7934 9911 Email: Alan.e@londoncouncils.gov.uk

Summary: Summary of the minutes of the London Councils’ Transport & Environment Committee held on 11 December 2014

Recommendations: For information.

1. Attendance: Cllr Cameron Geddes (LB Barking & Dagenham), Cllr Dean Cohen (LB Barnet), Cllr Don Massey (LB Bexley), Cllr George Crane (LB Brent), Cllr Colin Smith (LB Bromley), Cllr Kathy Bee (LB Croydon), Cllr Julian Bell (LB Ealing, Chair), Cllr Vicki Pite (LB Enfield, Deputy), Cllr Feryal Demirci (LB Hackney), Cllr Wesley Harcourt (LB Hammersmith & Fulham), Cllr Stuart McNamara (LB Haringey), Cllr Barry Kendler (LB Harrow, Deputy), Cllr Robert Benham (LB Havering), Cllr Tim Coleridge (RB Kensington & Chelsea), Cllr David Cunningham (RB Kingston-upon-Thames), Cllr Alan Smith (LB Lewisham), Cllr Nick Draper (LB Newham), Cllr Stephen Speak (LB Richmond-upon-Thames), Cllr Mark Williams (LB Southwark), Cllr Colin Hall (LB Sutton), Cllr Clyde Loakes (LB Waltham Forest), Cllr Caroline Usher (LB Wandsworth) and Michele Dix (Transport for London).

2. Apologies for Absence: Cllr Chris Bond (LB Enfield), Cllr Varsha Parmar (LB Harrow), Cllr Amritt Mann (LB Hounslow), Cllr Jenny Bathwaite (LB Lambeth) and Cllr Heather Acton (City of Westminster).

3. Flood Risk Management in London and the Thames Regional Flood & Coastal Committee (TRFCC) – Introduction by Amanda Nobbs (Chair of the TRFCC) The Committee received a report that outlined the business case to enable members to make a more informed decision on the flood levy for the Thames catchment area, as requested by members at the TEC meeting on 16 October 2014.

A vote took place on whether TEC should recommend that the Thames Regional Flood & Coastal Committee (TRFCC) adopt a 1.99% increase, per year, to the flood levy over a 6-year period. The results were as follows: In Favour: 15. Against: 7

The Committee: (i) agreed to give a steer to the TRFCC to recommend a 1.99% per year increase to the flood levy over a 6-year period, (ii) noted and commented on the Business Case provided by the Environment Agency, and (iii) noted that members of the TRFCC would determine on 21 January 2015 the investment programme and levy. 4. **Draft Car Club Strategy** The Committee considered a report on the Draft Car Club Strategy that had been jointly developed by members of the Car Club Coalition. The Coalition included representatives from the industry and key stakeholders including London Councils, GLA and TfL. Members were invited to comment on the Car Club Strategy. Lilli Matson (Head of Strategy & Outcome Planning, TfL) introduced the report and gave a brief overview of the Strategy.

The Committee: (i) reviewed the Car Club Strategy, and (ii) noted that concern was expressed over car club vehicles being exempt from paying the congestion charge and noted that a number of members wanted this removed from the draft Strategy.

5. **Chair's Report** The Committee received a report that updated members on transport and environment policy since the last TEC meeting on 16 October 2014, and provided a forward look until the next TEC meeting on 12 March 2015. The Chair informed members that work had taken place on bus services, Crossrail 2 and air quality during this Chair's reporting period.

The Committee noted the Chair's Report.

6. **Consultation on Fixed Penalty Notices and Setting Fixed Penalty Levels for Anti-Social Spitting** The Committee received a paper that presented the results of the public consultation on the levels of fines for breaches of anti-social spitting byelaws. The report also sought Members' decision on whether to set a £80 fixed penalty level for spitting.

The Committee: (i) agreed that London boroughs should set a £80 fixed penalty level for a spitting offence, and (ii) agreed to set the level of reduction at £50 if the PCN was paid before the end of the 14 day period, beginning with the date of the notice.

7. **London Safer Lorry Scheme Progress & Next Steps** The Committee considered a report that outlined the progress with the creation of a new Londonwide Safer Lorry Scheme which would require the fitting of extended view mirrors and side guards to all Heavy Goods Vehicle (HGVs) over 3.5 tonnes, at all times.

The Committee: (i) noted that all London boroughs had now given permission to amend the TEC Governing Agreement. Approval, therefore, was given to the Borough Roads (London Safer Lorry Scheme) (Restriction of Goods Vehicles) Traffic Order 2015 contained in Appendix 2 and to authorise officers to proceed with Notice of Making in due course in conjunction with TfL and HAL, and (ii) noted the progress, programme and next steps for the proposed London Safer Lorry Scheme.

8. **Quietways Signing Guidance** The Committee received a report that asked members to review and provide comment on the “Quietways Signing Guidance” that was attached to the report. The document was currently in draft, but would be issued for implementation on the two pilot Quietways in late January 2015.

The Committee: (i) noted and commented on the report, which was for information only, and (ii) agreed that Alan Edwards would resend to members the “Quietways Signing Guidance” document by TfL.

09. **Roads Task Force – Street Types Programme** This report was withdrawn.

10. **Concessionary Fares 2015/16 Settlement & Apportionment** The Committee received a report that informed members of the outcome of negotiations with transport operators (Transport for London (TfL), the Association of Train Operating Companies (ATOC) and independent bus operators), regarding compensation for carrying concessionary passengers in 2015/16. The report also sought members' approval to the proposed settlement and apportionment. The Committee: (i) agreed the TfL settlement of £327.922m for 2015/16, (ii) agreed to the proposed extension to the existing ATOC agreement and the consequent settlement of £21.334m for 2015/16, (iii) agreed a budget for non-TfL bus services of £2.2m, (iv) agreed the reissue budget for 2015/16 of £1.518m, (v) agreed the borough payments for 2015/16 of £352.974m, (vi) agreed the payment profile and dates on which boroughs’ contributions were paid as 4 June 2015, 3 September 2015, 3 December 2015 and 4 March 2016, and (vii) agreed the 2015-2016 London Service Permit bus operators (non-TfL buses) Concessionary Scheme.

11. Freedom Pass 2015 Reissue Update The Committee received a report that provided members with an update on the progress of the project to renew approximately 940,000 Freedom Passes that were due to expire on 31 March 2015.

The Committee: (i) noted the progress on the Freedom Pass 2015 reissue since the last report to this Committee in October 2014, and (ii) noted that work continued to establish new procedures for first time Freedom Pass applicants.

12. Revenue Budget & Borough Charges 2015/16 The Committee received a report that detailed the outline revenue budget proposals and the proposed indicative borough subscription charges for 2015/16. These proposals were considered by the TEC Executive Sub Committee at its meeting on 13 November 2014. The Executive Sub Committee agreed to recommend that the full Committee approved these proposals.

Committee agreed the changes in individual levies and charges for 2015/16 as follows:

- The Parking Core Administration Charge of £1,500 per borough and for TfL (2014/15 - £1,500; paragraph 38)
- The total Parking Enforcement Service Charge of £0.4333 which would be distributed to boroughs and TfL in accordance with PCNs issued in 2013/14 (2014/15 - £0.4519 per PCN; paragraphs 35-37)
- The Concessionary Fares Administration Charge of £8,674 per borough (2014/15 - £8,674; paragraph 16)
- The Taxicard Administration Charge to boroughs of £338,182 in total (2014/15 - £417,360; paragraphs 17-19).
- No charge to boroughs in respect of the Lorry Control Administration Charge, which was fully covered by estimated PCN income (2014/15 - £98,612; average charge £3,287; paragraphs 20-21);
- Congestion Charging Appeals – to be recovered on a full cost recovery basis, subject to the continuing agreement of the GLA under the contract arrangements that ran until December 2016 (paragraph 28)
- The Parking and Traffic Appeals Charge of £33.40 per appeal or £29.97 per appeal where electronic evidence was provided by the enforcing authority (2014/15 - £38.54/£36.92 per appeal; paragraph 29)
- The TRACE (Electronic) Charge of £8.60 per transaction (2014/15 - £10.40; paragraphs 33-34)
- The TRACE (Fax) Charge of £8.80 per transaction (2014/15 - £12.83; paragraphs 33-34)
- The TEC Charge of £0.20 per transaction (2014/15 - £0.20; paragraphs 33-34);
- The provisional gross revenue expenditure of £377.058 million for 2015/16, as detailed in Appendix A of the report;
- On the basis of the agreement of the above proposed charges, the provisional gross revenue income budget of £377.058 million for 2015/16, with no proposed recommended transfer from uncommitted reserves to produce a balanced budget, as shown in Appendix B; and
- The indicative charges to individual boroughs set out in Appendix C.
- The Committee was also asked to note the current position on reserves, as set out in paragraphs 54-58 and Table 9 of the report.

13. Minutes of the TEC Executive Sub Committee held on 11 September 2014 Minutes of TEC on 16 October 2014 (agenda item 8, page 5) – Cllr Smith said that he had no objection to an Ultra Low Emission Zone in general, but felt that “one size did not fit all”. He asked for this to be reflected in the minutes. Subject to the above amendment, the minutes of the TEC Executive Sub Committee held on 13 November 2014 were noted.

14. Minutes of the TEC Main Meeting held on 16 October 2014 The minutes of the TEC Main meeting held on 16 October 2014 were agreed as an accurate record. Pensions CIV Sectoral Joint Committee (PSJC) 17 December 2014

Minutes of a meeting of the Pensions CIV Sectoral Joint Committee held on Wednesday 17 December 2014 at 2:30pm in the Conference Suite, London Councils, 59½ Southwark Street, London SE1 0AL

Mr Mark Boleat chaired the meeting from item 3.

Present: City of London Mark Boleat (Chair) Barking and Dagenham - Barnet Cllr Mark Shooter Bexley Cllr John Waters Brent Cllr Shafique Choudhary Camden - Croydon Cllr Simon Hall Ealing Cllr Yvonne Johnson Enfield Cllr Derek Levy (Deputy) Greenwich - Hackney Cllr Roger Chapman Hammersmith and Fulham Cllr Iain Cassidy Haringey Cllr Jason Arthur Harrow Cllr Keith Ferry Hounslow Cllr Mukesh Malhotra Islington Cllr Michael O’Sullivan (Deputy) Kensington and Chelsea - Kingston Upon Thames Cllr Eric Humphrey Lambeth Cllr Adrian Garden Lewisham Cllr Mark Ingleby Merton - Newham Cllr Ted Sparrowhawk (Deputy) Redbridge Cllr Elaine Norman Richmond Upon Thames Cllr Thomas O’Malley Southwark Cllr Fiona Colley Sutton Cllr Sunita Gordon Tower Hamlets Cllr Clare Harrison Waltham Forest - Wandsworth Cllr Guy Senior (Deputy) City of Westminster Cllr Suhail Rahuja

Apologies:

| Enfield | Cllr Toby Simon | |---------------|----------------| | Greenwich | Cllr Don Austen| | Islington | Cllr Richard Greening | | Merton | Cllr Imran Uddin | | Newham | Cllr Forhad Hussain | | Wandsworth | Cllr Maurice Heaster |

Officers of London Councils were in attendance as was Mr Chris Buss (Chair of Technical Sub-Group).

1. Declaration of Interests 1.1. There were no declarations of interest that were of relevance to this meeting.

2. Apologies for Absence & Notification of Deputies 2.1. Apologies and deputies are listed above

3. Election of Chair 3.1. Mr Hugh Grover (Programme Director London LGPS CIV) called for nominations for the position of Chair of the Pensions CIV Sectoral Joint Committee (PSJC) and Mr Mark Boleat was nominated by Councillor Yvonne Johnson and seconded by Councillor Guy Senior. In the absence of any other nominations Mr Boleat was elected as Chair and took over chairing the meeting.

4. Election of Vice-chairs 4.1. The Chair invited nominations for up to two Vice-chairs. 4.2. Councillor Clare Harrison nominated Councillor Peter Brayshaw to be the Labour Vice Chair. Councillor Peter Brayshaw was elected as the Labour Vice Chair of the PSJC. 4.3. Councillor Guy Senior nominated Councillor Maurice Heaster to be the Conservative Vice Chair. Councillor Maurice Heaster was elected as the Conservative Vice Chair of the PSJC.

5. Terms of Reference & Notifications of Membership 5.1. The Chair introduced a report that informed members of the current Terms of Reference of the PSJC, as agreed, in principle, by London Councils' Leaders Committee at its meeting on 11 March 2014. The report also notified members of the PSJC membership. 5.2. Members of the PSJC asked who the members of the Technical Sub Group (TSG) were. Hugh Grover confirmed that the TSG was constituted of officers from the following boroughs: Barking and Dagenham, Brent, Croydon, Ealing, Hackney, Lambeth, Newham, Tri Boroughs and Wandsworth. 5.3. It was noted that the boroughs of Bromley, Havering and Hillingdon were currently not participating in the CIV, but should they decide to participate later they would have to contribute the same amount of funds to join the CIV as the other boroughs. 5.4. The Committee:

   - Noted the contents of the report and the membership of the PSJC, and
   - Noted the Terms of Reference at the annex of the report.

6. Background & Progress Update 6.1. The Chair invited Mr Hugh Grover to introduce this item and deliver a presentation (attached at Appendix 1 of these minutes) based on the supporting report and he did as follows:

______________________________________________________________________

1 Since the meeting it has been announced that Councillor Brayshaw has died and as such the position of Vice Chair falls for re-election at the next meeting. • The current structure of the LGPS in London could be argued to be inefficient, but is based on decisions and regulations made many years ago and any move towards greater collaboration and efficiency must recognise the historic position.

• 29 London boroughs and the City of London Corporation have agreed to work together with the aim of establishing a Collective Investment Vehicle. It was noted that the LPFA were not direct participants in the arrangements, but that officers kept LPFA colleagues in touch with progress and the LPFA could be investors later if they chose to.

• A company had been established (London LGPS CIV Ltd.) to be the regulated Authorised Contractual Scheme (ACS) operator. 23 three London local authorities were initial shareholders, seven boroughs (Ealing, Harrow, Lambeth, Lewisham, Southwark, Tower Hamlets and Waltham Forest) were currently going through the formalities of becoming shareholders.

• The company would need a range of partner suppliers to be procured. The procurement of an Asset Servicer (covering custodian, depository and fund administration services) would be key to the CIV. This procurement was nearing conclusion and the outcome was expected to be announced in the New Year.

• Work to date had been undertaken against a set of guiding principles agreed by London Councils’ Leaders’ Committee in February 2014.

• The implementation programme was being delivered through three interrelated projects: i. Setting up the underlying company structure; ii. Preparing the company as a FCA authorised and regulated operator of an ACS fund; iii. Setting up the fund for launch.

• Programme partners included the Pensions Working Group (PWG), Technical Sub-Group (TSG) and expert advisors (Eversheds, Deloitte, Mercer). The TSG was made up of pension experts from the boroughs and had been pivotal in setting up the CIV and had put in a great deal of effort. The expert advisors were all on a fixed fee.

• The overarching governance structure had been designed to provide the participating boroughs with a high degree of oversight and influence over the operating company and the fund. However, ultimate decisions relating to the fund would be made by the operator but would reflect the needs and wishes of the boroughs.

• The ACS structure had been chosen over other similar international structures because: o It would keep borough funds UK domiciled; o It is FCA regulated, which delivers an additional level of assurance to the participants; o It provides a high degree of and tax efficiency, delivering tax advantages beyond those already available to the boroughs; o It is data transparent and provides a level of ‘look through’ to the underlying assets that some other structures do not allow. • Advice from Counsel had given assurance that participating London LGPS funds, and potentially LGPS funds beyond London, could invest through the CIV without the need for procurement.

• Each participating authority had contributed £25,000 to a dedicated fund held by London Councils. A further £50,000 had been requested as two further payments of £25,000, with the first being invoiced as soon as the necessary finance systems were in place and the second at the start of the next financial year. This total of £75,000 per participating borough was expected to be sufficient to establish the CIV and leave around £500,000 as a contingency or, if not used, to pay some of the first year’s running costs.

• A detailed operating budget was being worked on by the TSG and would be brought to the next meeting for member consideration.

• It was planned to launch the CIV in the summer of 2015, but this depended on finalising the company’s operating model, recruiting key staff and achieving FCA authorisation.

6.2. The Committee considered and noted the contents of the report

7. Fund Manager Analysis

7.1. The Chair invited Mr Hugh Grover to introduce this item and deliver a presentation (attached at Appendix 1 of these minutes) based on the supporting report and he did as follows:

• Technical Sub-Group officers were in discussions with Investment Managers to collect data covering current borough investments with a view to constructing a proposal for the structure of the fund for launch, which the participating boroughs would be asked to consider early in 2015 and to make investment decisions later in the year.

• The strategy for constructing the fund for launch was based on collectivising investment mandates where two or more boroughs had essentially procured the same product.

• The ACS fund would be structured as an ‘umbrella’ fund with separate sub-funds for each investment mandate. Each sub-fund would be ring-fenced to prevent cross contamination and would be managed by one Investment Manager (i.e. no mixing of managers within sub-funds).

• Initial analysis had suggested that up to £10 billion of borough assets could be transitioned onto the fund for launch, but decisions would be needed later about what scale might be achievable/manageable for launch.

• Fee savings could be in excess of £3 million, but would not be evenly spread across boroughs. However, benefits would grow over time and individual boroughs could increase their benefits by making decisions to transition from current investments to those offered by the CIV.

• The fund would be able to provide a wide range of investment opportunities, but it was noted that an ACS could not invest in a ‘Life Fund’, which meant that some fund managers had to re-design their structures to enable them to participate in the CIV.

• Some thought had been given to oversight and decision making for the fund beyond launch, including scrutiny of fund manager performance. More work would be needed on this as part of the development of the operating model.

- Alternative investments would be made available through the CIV as part of its development over time. A survey was underway across the boroughs to see what types of investments the participating boroughs might want to see.

7.2. In discussion the question of any link to the new borough Pensions Boards was raised. It was noted that there would be no direct link.

7.3. The Chair noted that more work would be done on fund manager scrutiny and how meetings would be structured to allow boroughs the level of manager engagement that they would need. It was noted that part of coming together in such a collaborative venture would require an element of trust across boroughs.

7.4. It was noted that the TSG had looked into whether the CIV would have a statement of investment principals. As the CIV would not be making investment decisions (this would remain with each individual borough) then a SIP would not be needed – boroughs would invest in sub funds that they believed would suit their purposes the best.

7.5. The Committee considered and noted the contents of the report

8. Asset Servicer Procurement Update

8.1. The Committee received a report that provided members with the background and a progress update relating to the procurement of the Asset Servicer, which was a key provider to the CIV

8.2. The Committee noted the contents of the report and the on-going progress of the procurement of an Asset Servicer.

9. Committee Dates for 2015

9.1. The Committee noted and agreed the following dates for the Pensions CIV Sectoral Joint Committee in 2015:

- Wednesday 25 February 2015
- Wednesday 25 March 2015 (3pm start)
- Wednesday 27 May 2015
- Wednesday 29 July 2015 (proposed AGM)
- Wednesday 23 September 2015
- Wednesday 4 November 2015

9.2. It was noted that all PSJC meetings would be held in the Conference Suite at London Councils and would commence at 10.30am, with the exception of the Wednesday 25 March meeting, which will start at 3pm.

The meeting closed at 4.05pm